DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         This appeal is directed against order dated 15.12.2014 in Case No. 01/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Kolkata-II, (For short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case. Being aggrieved and/or  dissatisfied with the same, the OP Nos. 1,2,3 and 7 have preferred this appeal.

            The case of the complainant is that she took a life insurance policy from the OP No. 2 vide policy no. 14379595 on 03.05.2011 being HDFC SL Crest Policy of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 10 years carrying a premium of Rs.50.000/- per annum. It was purchased after careful discussion and consultation with the Relationship Manager of the OP No. 3, Mr. Bidhayak Chakraborty. Since then she started receiving calls for various life insurance policies from the OP No. 2  carrying different premium and assured value, but she did not venture into it . However, the OP No. 2 in connivance with the OP Nos. 4 & 5 without her valid consent illegally issued policy nos. 14519839, 14591850, 14675150, 14713916, 14780887, 14784502 and 14801692 of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.75,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, totalling Rs.5,75,000/-. She approached the OP No. 2 and Mr.Bidhayak Chakraborty there who assured her that those have been issued wrongly and will be cancelled in a few days. But, in the meantime, he resigned from his position. So, she approached the OP No. 2’s Grievance Cell and filed a complaint on 17.01.2013 requesting to cancel all the policies issued in her name without consent, signature, knowledge or intimation, but in vain. Further, she made out her grievance to the OP No. 6 in December, 2012 /January,2013, who advised her to purchase fresh insurance policies of Rs.2.05 lakes in order to avail the maximum benefits along with higer  rate of interest from the said policies  and  for cancelling the previous policies , which she purchased vide policy nos. 157335 , 15791036, 16171751 and 16269373. But, her previous policies were never cancelled nor she got any benefit by such new policies, whereby she lost an amount of Rs.7.80 lakhs in the entire process of misselling by the OPs. Finally, she sent a letter on 13.11.2013 to the OP requesting to cancel all the previous policies  and to refund the amount  and compensation for mental agony, but without reply. So, this case

          On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 is  that the complaint case is false, frivolous, baseless and concocted and not  maintainable either in law or in facts and has been filed with malafide intention to cover her own laches. Further, HDFC Bank has not been made a party, for which the case is bad for defect of parties. In fact, the Complainant approached the OP through its Agent in May, 2011 and expressed her willingness to avail a life insurance policy and applied for a “HDFC SL Crest Policy” by filling up an application form and was issued policy no. 14379595, which was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs. 50,000/- payable for five years.  Thereafter, she approached the OP on several occasions till December, 2011 and applied for further 07 policies. Pertinently, as per the IRDA guidelines, there is an option to return the policy within Free Look Period i.e. 15 days, if the policyholder is not satisfied. But, the Complainant  did not  opt for it. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

          It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any irregularity and/or illegality form making  an intervention in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

         Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the Ld./ District Forum has  gone and travelled beyond its periphery making advice  as a social reformer. The impugned order is totally defective, and bad in the eye of law. There is no basis for the findings and the ultimate order passed. Only social point of view was  taken into consideration, and not the legal point of view. This is a case of lapsed policies. The Complainant filled up the application forms for the policies which are binding upon her. There is no negligence on the part of the  OP Insurance Company in the matter.

          Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that on 03.05.2011, the first policy was taken from the OP Insurance Company  on the basis of a single premium, but the same  shown as for ten year premiums, and  ultimately she continued with the policy for three years. An annual income of 3.5/5 lacs has been shown, but the premium amounts are Rs.7,50,000/- per year. Only one application form was initially filled up by Complainant, but several policies were created and issued by the Insurance Company copying her signature, only to create fund of the Insurance Company. It is a malpractice as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company, which they almost admitted.

         The factum of misselling is clear, vivid and apparent. There has been laches and deficient functioning of the service provider towards the Complainant. Accordingly,  rightly, the complaint case has been allowed by the Ld. District Forum. The award of refund of the entire premium amount is a rightful one, though a deduction of 5%  service charge has been given in favour of the OPs, and the interest on it and also the compensatory amount of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost.  But, the penal damages of Rs.25,000./- payable to the  Forum’s account and another penal interest @ 500/- per day are unjustified and struck off. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified. The appeal stands partly allowed.