Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/276/2016

Sh. Pankaj Roy Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Hitender Kansal Adv.

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	276 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	26.4.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	22.5.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Col. (Retd.) Pankaj Roy Bhatia, H. No.4703, GH 4A, Jal Vayu Vihar, Sector 20, Panchkula 134 116.

 

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. SCO No.45-46-47, Sector 17A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.  M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122 003.

 

3.  M/s Induslnd Bank Ltd. SCO 321, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: 

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        PRESDING MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv. Alongwith                   complainant in person.  

 

For OP No.1 &2          :     Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Adv.

 

For OP No.3             :     Sh. Arun Dogra and Paras Chugh, Advs                              alongwith Sh. Shashi Kumar Sharma,                                Assistant manager of OP No.3

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

     As per the case, the complainant has a saving account with OP No.3. According to the complainant the OP No.3 is a corporate agent and joint venture partner of OPs No.1&2 (Insurance Company) and started pressurizing the complainant to take policy of the said Insurance company, which the complainant refused.  On this the OP No.3 by adopting unfair method got issued an insurance policy with an annual premium of Rs.10 lacs and got signed a debit voucher from the complainant by misrepresenting the facts and debited a sum of
Rs.10 lacs from his account under the narration DDCC issued.  The complainant raised the issue with OP No.3 but he was put off each time by saying that the amount has been invested in a high-return FD. However, no proof of investment was ever given.  In March, 2015 the OP bank revealed that the amount has been invested with OP No.1.  The complainant approached OP No.1 asking it as to how the policy was issued without any proposal form got signed from the complainant but failed to answer satisfactorily.  Ultimately OP No.1 agreed to return only the principal amount of Rs.10 lakh and asked to the complainant to sign a settlement deed before handing over the cheque, which was not acceptable to the complainant as such OP No.1 declined to hand over cheque to the complainant.  It is alleged that the OP No.3 who is the custodian of the complainant’s money allowed to use his money without his prior consent and permission and OPs No.1&2 used his money without giving any return, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

 

2       Opposite Party No.1&2 have filed reply and stated that the complainant had purchased the policy in question from OP No.1 with his own sweet will and without any pressure & especially after thorough examination of the terms and conditions of the policy in question.  It is denied that the answering OPs adopted unfair and clandestine method to get the premium amount. It is asserted that on receiving the proposal form the policy was issued to the complainant on 27.3.2014 and policy documents were sent to the complainant on 2.4.2014 through courier. The complainant paid only one premium and thereafter requested for the cancellation of the policy, which was accepted and the policy was cancelled and the amount of premium of Rs.10 lacs was paid back to the complainant on ex gratia basis  under the settlement deed dated 11.8.2015.. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3           OP No.3 in its reply stated that the answering OP bank has not adopted any unfair and clandestine method to get issued an insurance policy with an annual premium of Rs.10 lacs. In fact the complainant himself signed the debit voucher to issue demand draft of Rs.10 lac voluntarily and without any misrepresentation. It is asserted that the policy in question was issued by OPs No.1&2 and the sum of Rs.10 lacs stands deposited with the said company which is a separate entity having no concern with the answering OP.   It is pleaded that the obligation of getting the proposal form filled and signed was that of OPs No.1&2 as the money was invested with them and the answering OP has nothing to do with the dispute in question. It is pleaded that the answering OP cannot be held liable for the act and conduct of OPs No.1&2. Denying all other allegation of the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

 

4           The Complainant also filed separate rejoinder to the replies of the OPs thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their respective.

 

5           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

 

6           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7           The factum that the Private Sector i.e. Indus Bank (OP No.3) is a corporate  agent for Aviva Life Insurance Company i.e. OPs No.1&2 has not been controverted by any cogent evidence, which reflect  that they are interested in raising financial assets and investments for their entity.

 

8           The OPs, obviously, as is apparent from the facts in issue have conspired and in connivance with each other have divested the complainant from his hard earned savings of Rs.10 lacs by putting the money in dubious scheme i.e. insurance policy. There is no clarity to the fact when the complainant signed the so called proposal form for the policy in question. It also transpires that the complainant was never explained any terms and conditions of the policy by either of the parties. There is no cogent evidence to justify the stand of OPs No.1&2 for the issuance of the policy which was issued without verifying the financial capacity of the complainant to pay for such a big premium amount of Rs.10 lacs payable annually. No income tax return proof or any of the income proof has been placed on record fortifying that the complainant is in a position to pay such a huge amount of Rs.10 lakhs annually. 

 

 

9           The complainant has placed on record one blank copy of the debit vourcher where it is mentioned as under:

    “For cash DD/PO’s only (total amount of     cash DD/PO’s) including commission      should be less than Rs.50,000/-”

 

 

 

         It is travesty of justice to observe that how come the banking institution like OP No.3 can transfer such a big amount of Rs.10 lacs only on account of signatures made by the complainant on a debit voucher. It seems to have been done just to benefit the insurance company i.e. their insurance agents who got huge commission/financial benefits on such procurement of payments. It has already been discussed in the preceding paras that The Private Sector i.e. Indusbank (OP3) is a corporate agent for Aviva Life Insurance Company (OPs No.1&2) which reflect that they are interested in raising financial assets and investments for their entity.

 

10          It is a matter of record that OP Nos.1&2 are ready to refund amount of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant as the disputed policy stands cancelled in their record, which has been cancelled on the alleged request of the complainant. In our view the decision to cancel the policy by OPs NO.1&2 on ex-gratia  basis as claimed in their reply is just an effort to save their skin from the wrong they have committed. We further are of the opinion that the complainant is not only entitled for refund of his principal amount of Rs.10 lacs but also entitled for interest on that amount  for the period it remained with OPs No.1&2. The Indus Bank/OP No.3 has committed breach of trust by becoming an active privy to the conspiracy by channelizing the money of the complainant lying in the bank to the insurance policy against the express consent of the complainant and hence warrants severe reprimand.

 

 

11         In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the complaint, the same is allowed against the OPs.  The OPs No.1&2 are directed to refund the principal amount of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of debit of the same from the account of the complainant till it is paid.  For their deficiency in service and also for their indulgence into unfair trade practice the OPs No.1,2 and 3 shall pay 20,000/- each  to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation jointly and severally.

 

 

    The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which OPs No.1&2 shall pay interest on the amount of Rs.10 lacs @12% p.a. from the date of debit of the same from the account of the complainant till it is paid and OPs No.1,2 and 3 shall also be liable to pay interest @12% on the amounts of Rs.20,000/- each  to be paid by them from the date of filing the present complaint till it is paid apart from paying the litigation costs jointly and severally.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22.5.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER