Order No.  17  dt.  13/08/2019

        Case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant no.2 Mrs. Manju Tibrewal obtained a policy being no.2326059 with the o.p. insurance company. On 29/11/2014 an agent of o.p. Insurance Company namely Pampa Bose i.e. o.p. no.2 approached the complainant no.2 to join another name with her existing policy will be beneficial for her existing policy. Being convinced by the proposal of o.p. no.1, the complainant handed over some documents to o.p. no.1 to add a new name in her existing policy. The complainant stated that under misrepresentation by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 the existing policy of the complainant no.2 was cancelled and a new policy was issued in favour of Mr. Ashis Tibrewal, the complainant no.1 and subsequently the o.p.- Insurance co. refunded Rs.63,000/- to the  bank account of the complainant no.2 in respect of the surrendered amount of her previous policy. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the o.p. Insurance co. issued a new policy in favour of the complainant no.1 who never requested the o.ps to issue the same in favour of him. It is further stated that the o.ps collected the premium amount of the new policy issued in favour of the complainant no.1 by depositing the cheque issued in favour of o.p. – Insurance co. towards payment of the premium of the policy of the complainant no.2 for which the complainant noi.2 suffered a huge financial loss. On several occasions complainants requested the o.ps to refund the premium amount of Rs.63,000/- to the complainant no.2 and to cancel the new policy issued in favour of complainant no.1 but o.p. did nothing to that effect. It is further stated that the complainants lodged an F.I.R before the Phoolbagan police station to enquire into the matter of forgery of the signature of the complainant no.1 which he did not put on the policy documents and intimated the said fact to the o.ps but o.ps did not pay any heed to that. Therefore, the complainants sent Advocate’s letter dated 07/02/2018 requesting the same and receiving which the o.p. intimated them that o.ps were willing to settle the matter and decided to refund the premium amount of Rs.63,000/- to the complainants by a letter dated 22/03/2018. Therefore, o.p. did nothing to that effect for which the complainant file this case praying for direction upon the o.ps to refund Rs.63,000/- along with compensation of Rs.75,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            All the o.ps have contested this case by filing w/v, denying and disputing all the material allegations leveled against them, stating that on behalf of complainant no.1 a proposal form was received on the basis of that they issued a policy in favour of the complainant vide policy no. 10190146 commencing on 29/12/2014. Therefore, on 9^th January,2015 complainant no.2 sent an e-mail to the o.p. –Insurance company stating that complainant no.1 did not apply for issuance of any insurance policy and since he did not put any signature on the policy documents he wanted to cancel the same so they cancelled the policy of the complainant no.2 and subsequently refunded the surrendered amount of Rs.63,000/- to the account of the complainant no.2. O.ps have further stated that if they have any ulterior motive they could withdraw a huge amount from the bank account of the complainants. Instead of that they deposited the cheque issued in favour of the o.p. – Insurance Company towards the payment of 1^st premium of the policy of the complainant no.1 O.ps have also stated that they have decided to refund Rs.18,000/-to the complainants from the premium amount of Rs.63,000/- through NEFT and as they informed the same to the complainants thereby they have not committed any deficiency in service. Accordingly, the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

            Points for determination

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs?

            Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.

            Admittedly the complainant no.2 obtained an insurance policy being no. 2326059 from the o.p. – Insurance co. and subsequently agent of the o.p. – insurance co. approached her to add one name with her existing policy which will bring additional benefit to her existing policy. Being convinced by the o.p. no.2 the complainant handed over some documents to add a new name with her existing policy to the o.p. no.1. The complainants stated that instead of adding a name with her existing policy o.p. – Insurance co. cancelled her policy and issued a new policy in favour of Mr. Ashish Tibrewal, the complainant no.1. Moreover, the o.p. – Insurance co. deducted the premium amount towards new policy issued by them from the bank account of the complainant no.2. It is the specific allegation of the complainants that though the complainant no.2 did not request the o.ps to cancel her existing policy but o.ps did the same and returned the policy with the surrendered amount to the bank account of her but did not refund the premium amount which has been deducted from her bank account towards the premium of the policy of the complainant no.1. It is the specific defence of the o.ps that they have refunded the surrendered amount of the policy of the complainant no.2 immediately after getting information that she never wanted to cancel her existing policy and requested them to refund the premium amount deducted from her account. On perusal of documents on record it appears that the complainant no.2 informed the o.ps through email on 09/01/2015 that she wanted to add one name with her existing policy instead of cancellation of the same. Realizing the misrepresentation made by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2, the o.p. – Insurance Co. refunded the said amount to the complainant no.2.           

            Complainant no.1 stated that he did not put any signature on the new policy documents and also stated the same to the o.ps but their inaction compelled him to lodge an F.I.R. against the o.ps on 25/07/2015 and he informed the said matter to the o.ps. O.ps stated that they have no knowledge about the F.I.R. lodged against them. It appears from the documents on record that the complainants through their Advocate sent a letter dated 07/02/2018 stating that they have lodged an F.I.R. against them on the matter of forging the signature of the complainant no.1. It further appears that on request of complaints o.ps neither refunded the deducted premium amount of the complainant no.2 nor they cancelled the new policy of the complainant no.1. However, it also appears that o.ps agreed to refund the deducted amount of Rs.18,600/-  from the amount of Rs.63,000/- after receiving the Advocate’s letter on 07/02/2018. On submission of Ld. Advocate for the complainant it appears that o.ps have refunded entire premium amount. although the o.ps have refunded the premium amount to the complainant no.2 their good sense of refunding the said amount has appeared only after filing this instant case. It is very much evident that the complainants made several correspondences to the o.p. – Insurance co. to treat the policy being no. 10190146 as cancelled and to refund the amount paid towards the premium of the said policy but the o.ps did not pay any heed to that. Since the new policy had been issued under misrepresentation by the agent of the o.p.- Insurance co. and the o.ps have not paid any heed to that, such inaction on the part of the o.ps, in our view, amounts to deficiency in service.           

            The copies of correspondences including F.I.R. show that the complainants had to undergo mental stress owing to inaction on the part of the o.ps for which the o.ps shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.

            The o.ps compelled the complainant to file the instant case for getting refund of said premium amount. Therefore, the o.ps are liable to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants.

            Both the points are disposed of accordingly.

            In the result the complaint case succeeds.

            Hence, it is,

                        Ordered

            that the CC/168/2018 is allowed on contest against the o.ps with cost. O.ps are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complainants within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.