BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/435 of 8.6.2010 

                                                Decided on:          26.8.2011

Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh.Ram Singh R/o H.No.7085, Street No.2, Tafazalpura, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Mr.K.V.R.K.Raju, Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office: 6th Floor, Vaman, Centre, Makhwana Road, Off: Andheri-Kurla Road, Near Marol Naka, Andheri(E),Mumbai-400059.

2.                 The Manager, Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.33, Leela Bhawan, Near State Bank of Patiala.

3.                 Pankaj Gupta, Insurance Advisor R/o 115/3, Markal Colony, Sanauri Adda, Patiala( Code No. PT-1038).

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                       Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Hitinder Sharda, Advocate

For ops No.1&2              Sh.B.S.Chehal, Advocate

For op no.3:                            Ex-parte.

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          It is the case of the complainant that he was approached by op no.3 Pankaj Gupta, an insurance advisor through Parvesh Kumar s/o Channa Kumar R/o village Ablowal, with whom the complainant has got good relations. Op no.3 asked the complainant to deposit the money in a fixed deposit scheme and who assured the complainant to pay him more interest as compared to the nationalized banks. It was also represented that the FDR/policy could be surrendered at any time and that the depositor will get the deposited amount alongwith interest prevailing at the time of surrender of the policy/FDR.The complaint being an illiterate person had fallen prey to the aforesaid false assurances given by Pankaj Gupta.The complainant having been taken into confidence by Mr.Pankah Gupta agreed to deposit the amount and he paid Rs.1,50000/- to the op.Mr.Pankaj Gupta assured the complainant that he will be issued three FDRs of the amount to be deposited for a period of one year and also delivered the receipts stating that the same were the FDRs each for s.49620/-.The complainant had not gone through the same to see as to whether the same were FDRs or policies. The details of the said documents given in the complaint are as under:

2.       It is also averred that Mr.Pankaj Gupta, had assured the complainant about the rate of interest to be paid to the complainant will be 12% per annum and that after the expiry of a period of one year the FDRs could be got encashed or extended.

3.       After the expiry of a period of one year the complainant was shocked when he received a letter from ops no.1&2 whereby he was directed to deposit premium of the policies. He had never purchased the policies and he invested the amount in the FDRs. At this the complainant decided not to continue with the FDRs and wanted to surrender the same with the ops.The complainant apporahced op no.2 at Patiala and disclosed the entire story and requested to release the amount deposited by him but op no.2 refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The complainant also sent the letters to the ops but they failed to respond. The complainant then got a legal notice served upon the ops through registered post on 22.4.2010 but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of the deposit; to pay Rs.50,000/-as damages on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and further to pay him Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint.

4.       `On notice, the ops no.1&2 appeared while op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.

5.       In the written statement filed by ops no.1&2 they have raised certain legal objections, interalia, that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands having suppressed the material facts; that the procedure under the Act being of summary nature, the complaint having involved the intricate questions of law and facts, the matter is liable to be determined in a civil court; that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the ops and that the Forum lacs the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred by the ops that the complainant had submitted three applications for purchasing Saral Jeevan Plan of insurance bearing No.A8442572, A8446869 A8442573 all dated 18.1.2008 for getting him insured in a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- every time with them having annual premium of Rs.49620/- in respect of each policy. The complainant had opted for the mote of payment as annual in respect of the policies.

6.       On receipt of the said applications alongwith other documents, policy bearing No.001414574, 001393990 and 001420141` were issued to the complainant on 23.1.2008, 23.1.2008 and 24.1.2008 respectively which were admittedly received by the complainant.

7.       It is further averred that the complainant failed to deposit the renewal premiums due on 23.1.2009, 23.1.2009 and 24.1.2009 respectively in respect of aforesaid polices and subsequently the policies had got lapsed on 23.2.2009, 23.2.2009 and 24.2.2009 because of the non receipt of the renewal premiums. Lapsed notices dated 5.3.2009 and 19.4.2009 in respect of policies No.001414590 and No.001414574 and dated 6.1.2009 and 5.4.2009 in respect of policy no.001420141 were sent to the complainant which he admittedly received but in spite of that he failed to deposit the premiums.

8.       It is also averred by the ops that for the first time, the complainant had made a written complaint which was received by the ops on 10.3.2010 with regard to mis selling of the product/policies. It was submitted by the complainant that the said policies were mis sold to him under the pretext of the FDRs and had asked for the refund of the money deposited by him. No prudent person would wait for more than two years for raising such an issue where the question of monetary gain or loss is substantially involved.

9.       It is further averred that as mandated by the IRDA regulations, each policy holder is apprised about the option of free look period of 15 days through a welcome letter sent alongwith the policy contract documents. Under the Free Look Period, if the policy holder finds any discrepancy in the policy terms and conditions he may exercise the free look option by informing the BSLI’s concerned department in writing. In such cases if the policy holder is not satisfied he can place a request for change in plan or cancellation of policy. The welcome letters were sent with the policies and it contained the free look option. Now the complainant has manipulated a story so as to achieve unwarranted and unethical gain from the ops. On these grounds, the ops contested the claim of the complainant and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

10.     In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, Ex.C10 the sworn affidavit of Jagjit Singh s/o Tara Chand  alongwith documents,Exs.C2 to C9 and his learned counsel closed evidence.

11.`   On the other hand, on behalf of the ops no.1&2, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1 the sworn affidavit of Puneet Bansal, authorized signatory of op no.1 alongwith documents Exs.R2 to R10 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

12.     The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. 

13.     Exs.R2,R5 and R8 are the copies of the applications for insurance given by the complainant, in which the detailed particulars of the complainant qua the insurance plan opted by him, the amount of the annual policy premium etc. have been given. The same are attached with the annual plan policy premium calculations sales illustrations, declaration by the advisor Mr.Pankaj Gupta etc. It is not the case of the complainant that his signatures were obtained on the applications without having explained the contents of the documents. It is the case of the complainant that op no.3 Pankaj Gupta had come accompanied by Parvesh Kumar, who was known to the complainant and therefore, the complainant can not be said to have been defrauded by op no.3.

14.     Every terms and conditions of the policy to be issued in favour of the complainant having fully been detailed out in the applications, nobody is to be blamed in case the complainant had not gone through the same. No prudent person is expected to invest a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- without knowing pros and cons of the  transaction and without consulting the documents on the basis of which the amount had been invested. In case the complainant was interested in having invested the money in a fixed deposit for a period of one year, he would have been anxious to know as to what would the amount payable after the expiry of one year and not that he would keep the documents at home. A person who is interested in earning more interest as compared to the interest being paid by the nationalized banks will always be having the anxiety to know as to what is the rate of interest payable on the fixed deposit by the ops.

15.     It is alleged by the complainant that he is an illiterate person but on perusal of the applications, Exs.R2,R5 and R8, it is transpired that he has signed the applications in Punjabi with a flow and his occupation is noted to be business and agriculture. An illiterate person can not do any business and therefore, the complainant is supposed to be educated one. The complainant has not produced the affidavit of Parvesh Kumar s/o Channa Kumar R/o village Ablowal in support of his plea that he is an illiterate person and was defrauded by op no.3.

16.     Admittedly the complainant had received the three policies issued on 23.1.2008,23.1.2008 and 24.1.2008 and therefore, the complainant on receipt of the policies must have come to know about the import of the documents as also the terms and conditions of the same.

17.     Admittedly the complainant had received the letter from the ops calling upon him to deposit the premium of the policies, one year after the complainant having deposited the money with the ops and when he came to know that the amount deposited by him was not invested in the fixed deposits and rather the ops have issued the thee policies, in that way the  cause of action had arisen to the complainant on receipt of the premium notices which he admittedly received one year after the deposit made by him but he failed to take up the matter with the ops by writing one or the other letter. He also failed to deposit the premium due in respect of each policy, which resulted into the policies getting lapsed on 23.2.2009, in respect of policy No.001414574, on 23.2.2009 in respect of policy No.01413990 and on 24.2.2009 in respect of policy No.001420141.

18.     Thereafter the complainant was sent the lapsed notices,Exs.R3 dated 5.3.2009 in respect of policy no.01413974, R6 dated 5.4.2009 in respect of policy No.001413990 and R9 dated 6.3.2009 in respect of policy no.001420141 having informed the complainant about the procedure to get the policies re instated within the validity period as disclosed in the said letters he was also informed that the revival of the lapsed policy was permissible only within two years from the lapsation date but again the complainant failed to take any action in response to the aforesaid letters.

19.     The complainant never had the cudgels to take up the matter with the ops by way of writing an application/letter to the ops about any grievance in the matter before 22.4.2010, when he got the legal notice( copy Ex.C6) served upon the ops no.1&2.Even in the said legal notice,Ex.C6, the complainant failed to make a mention of the premium notices and the lapciation notices sent to him and as to why he could not take the action in pursuance there of.

20.     Here, it is important that it is the plea taken up by the ops that it is a mandate of the IRDA Regulations that every policy holder is to be apprised about the option of free look period of 15 days  through a welcome letter sent alongwith policy contract documents. Under the free look option, if the policy holder finds any discrepancy  in the policy terms and conditions, he may exercise the free look option by informing the BSLI’s concerned department in writing. In such cases if the policy holder is not satisfied he can place a request for change in plan or cancellation of policy. The welcome letters were sent with the policies and the same contained the free look option. What the learned counsel for ops no.1&2 wanted to argue is that no where, it is the deposition made by the complainant in his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, that he had not received the aforesaid welcome letters containing the free look option. In that way, it was submitted by the learned counsel for ops no.1&2 that the complainant knew it very well from the very beginning that he was purchasing the insurance policies for the sum assured of Rs.5,40,000/- as is very much clear from the policy information,Ex.C2 to C4 in respect of the three policies but the complainant never made an attempt to challenge the transactions either before the Forum or with ops no.1&2 and approached this Forum after a lapse of one year and five months of the premium due, in respect of which he was admittedly apprised by the ops and therefore, it was submitted that the act and conduct of the complainant would go to show that the complaint is based on false allegations.

21.     The learned counsel for the complainant could not raise any point so as to show that the applications Exs.R2,R5 and R8 were got signed from the complainant by way of any fraud and that he was not aware about the contents of the same or the contents of the insurance policies. Similarly he could not raise any point as to what prevented the complainant in taking up the matter with the ops  immediately on receipt of the premium notices. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:30.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President