C.C filed on: 02-05-2009 <br /> Disposed on: 22-06-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT<br /> NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052<br /> <br /> C.C. NO.991/2009<br /> Dated of this 22nd day of June 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> Present:<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa President <br /> Sri.Ganganarasaiah Member<br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K. Member <br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> Mr.Vinay<br /> Aged about 30 years,<br /> S/o. Sri.Basavaraj Gurappa, <br /> Residing at No.131, 7th “B” Road, Complainant <br /> 3rd Block, 4th Stage, <br /> Basaveswaranagar, <br /> Bangalore-560 079<br /> <br /> AND <br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance<br /> Co, Ltd, GE Plaza, Airport Road, <br /> Road, Yarwada, Pune-411 008,<br /> Represented by its Managing <br /> Director<br /> 2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance <br /> Co, Ltd, Akshaya commercial complex, <br /> 2nd Floor, No.26, Victoria road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 047<br /> Represented by its General Manager Opposite parties <br /> 3. M/s. Bajaj Capital Broking Ltd,<br /> No.293/1, 17th Main Road, <br /> “D” III Block, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore – 560 010<br /> Represented by its branch <br /> Senior Manager <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) are that, the 1st OP is the head office of 2nd OP, 3rd OP is the authorized agent of Ops No.1 and 2. That he was approached by one Hariprasad Senior Manager of 1st OP, the 3rd OP and executive officer of 2nd OP and convinced him to invest in one of the policy with them to get tax exemption. He accordingly agreed to invest in the Capital Unit Gain Size One, he had to paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum multiplier for two years with the benefits terms and premium terms was 10 years. That is he required to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per annum for first two years only and benefits terms and premium terms is 10 years with a sum assured being Rs.2,00,000/- when matured after 10 years. Therefore he opted to invests Rs.1,00,000/- per annum for two years for assured a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- maturable after 10 years. That 3rd OP and executive of 2nd OP filled up policy form in his presence and he also signed to it in his presence and gave a cheques for Rs.1,00,000/-. OP’s who have received premium issued receipt for that payment covering risk from 21-2-2007 but in the receipt wrongly mentioned the some assured as Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. Then after seeing it he requested 2nd OP to furnish him a copy of filled form for verification. But they have failed to furnish a copy. The policy bond was sent to him after one year and furnished a copy of filled form after laps of 1 ½ years. Therefore contended that entries made in column No.4 of the proposal form multiplier benefits terms and premium terms are tempered by over writing by the concerned officials of Ops by altering the multiplier as 05 instead 02 similarly in place of benefits term and premium terms is over written as 30 instead of 10 and forged the application and scheme of policy. Then he approached the Ops to rectify the over writing as agreed upon and even got issued a legal notice on 13-1-2009 to correct over writing material information but Ops have not done and therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops to rectify the terms of the policy as instructed by him or alternatively to direct to Ops to reimburse with damages in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops No.1 and 2 have appeared through their Advocate and filed version admitting that the complainant has invested in a scheme with them but denied to have tampered insurance amount and tenure of investment as alleged by complainant. These Ops denying all other allegations of the complainant have further contended that the complainant obtained the capital unit gain size one policy by submitting proposal form duly filled the details mentioned premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum premium term as 10 years with maturity period as 10 years with sum assured Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant after accepting it paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- toward first installment then only the policy was issued. The complainant is required to pay annual premium installment of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years with a assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. That the complainant has made false and incorrect statement regarding over writing and forgery. These Ops further denying that insurance policy was sent to the complainant after lapse of 1 ½ years contended that the complaint is not maintainable, the allegations are false and stated that the complainant willingly opted to the scheme, admitting that there are certain over writing or correction in the proposal form stated that were done with the consent and in presence of the complainant and thereby stating that there is no merit in the complaint has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The 3rd OP has filed his version admitting that he was an agent of Ops No.1 and 2 then securing proposal from the complainant for issue of policy as stated that the complainant himself voluntarily visited the Ops and submitted filled application for issue of policy and denied that he has any roll in the issue of policy by other Ops except he offering a policy, received filled up application and forwarded it to other OPs and therefore contending that all transaction took between the complainant and the Ops No.1 and 2 and denying the allegations of the complainant has stated that no relief is sought against him has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and 3rd OP and one Ravikumar, for Ops No.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit evidence. Reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced a copy of receipt issued by Ops acknowledging the receipt of premium of Rs.1,00,000/-, a copy of proposal form, a copy of policy with copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Later he has also produced copies of certain E-mail he had sent to Ops. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions following points for determination arise<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have caused deficiency or unfair trade practice in issuing the policy in his favour?<br /> 2. To what relief the complaint is entitled?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:<br /> Answer on Point No.1: In the affirmative<br /> Answer on Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Answer on Point No.1: The fact that the complainant through the 3rd OP an agent of Ops No.1 and 2 obtained a policy called Capital unit gain size one a tax benefit investments scheme from Ops No.1 and 2 is not in dispute. The complainant has contended that the scheme he had availed was to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum multiplier for two years with a sum assured being of Rs.2,00,000/- fixing premium terms as 10 years, that is maturity period. He has also stated to had paid first premium and policy was issued covering risk from 21-2-2007 to 21-2-2017 that is for a period of 10 years only. But it is further contended by him thereafter without his knowledge the Ops have tampered the proposal form made over writings including committing forgery and shown the policy by wrongly mentioning the sum assured as Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- and corrected premium term as 30 years instead of 10 years and thereby the complainant has contended that the Ops have manipulated entries in the proposal forum. <br /> <br /> 8. The 3rd OP who is an agent of Ops No.1 and 2 as stated by him has acted as an agent for Ops No.1 and 2 b y discharging certain processing work as such we find no specific allegations against him. Whereas Ops No.1 and 2 have denied the allegation of the complainant regarding manipulation or over writing the material information of the proposal form and have contended as if the complainant himself had furnished information to fill up the proposal form and accordingly the premium was received and issued the policy. However Ops No.1 and 2 in para no.15 of their version and also affidavit evidence admitted the over writings made in the proposal forum. Admissions made by OPs runs as is under “ofcourse there are some over writing in the proposal form in the column wherein multiplier is corrected as five years and benefits terms and premium terms is correct as 30 years instead of 10 years and said correction was made in the presence and consent of the complainant”. It is therefore clear as admitted by these Ops that there are corrections and over writing in the proposal form correcting material information but these Ops have contended as if it was done with the consent of the complainant. If this admission of the Ops if referred to their early statement of Ops No.1 and2 that the complainant himself had filled up proposal form and gave information, then the subsequent statement of Ops that over writing was done with the consent can not be believed. Because as stated by the complainant in the proposal form he had shown premium of Rs.1,00,000/- with multiplier of two, benefit terms was shown as 10 years which are over written by showing the sum assured from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- from multiplier 2 to 5 and also altering benefits terms. When these Ops altered these figures is not made clear. If alteration was made with the consent of the complainant why did they not make a shara to that effect and did not take initial to those correction is a big question that points against to Ops no.1 and 2. As pointed by the complainant the policy was issued for a period of 10 years only covering risk form 21-2-2007 to 21-2-2017 until 21-2-2017 but the sum assured is shown as Rs.5,00,000/-. When in the proposal form benefits or premium term is corrected as 30 years how did this policy came to be issued for 10 years only needs to be answered by the Ops no.1 and 2. Therefore these facts and unanswered question prove that the material information furnished by the complainant as stated by him are subsequently tampered by Ops no.1 and 2 to suit their business tackties. As contended by Ops no.1 and 2 if those corrections were done with the consent of the complainant, they should have proved before this form but have not made any attempt to substantiate the consent given by the complainant. Therefore we are left with no option but to arrive to an irresistible inference that Ops no.1 and 2 have tampered material information in the proposal form. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant after coming to know this tampering of the proposal form and issue of policy sent many E-mail to Ops no.1 and 2 and even a legal notice on 13-1-2009 seeking for a copy of the proposal form to check the over writing but the Ops after lapse long time stated to have furnished a copy which proves alterations. The burden on the Ops no.1 and 2 that corrections were made with the consent of the complainant is not discharged therefore their defence fall to ground. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the complainants has proved that the Ops No.1 and 2 after tampering the proposal for have issued policy for more amount and for more period which is nothing but an un trade practice the Ops no.1 and 2 have adopted in the course of their business which needs to be curbed by imposing punitive damages besides granting other relief with the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and we pass the following.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Ops no.1 and 2 are directed to rectify the terms of the policy as instructed and desired by the complainant by issuing a corrected policy with assured a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two years premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each and fixing premium term as 10 years, within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the Ops no.1 and 2 shall refund the premium amount paid by complainant.<br /> <br /> Ops no.1 and 2 shall also pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant alongwith issue of rectified policy within the stipulated period mentioned above. <br /> <br /> If the Ops no.1 and 2 failing to comply the first direction that is issue of corrected policy shall in additions to refund of paid up amount shall pay damages of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within the 60 days from the date of this order and these OP shall also pay interest at 12% per annum on that amount in the event of their failure to pay that amount within that period until it is repaid. <br /> <br /> Ops no.1 and 2 shall also pay punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- and remit it to legal aid account of this forum within 60 days from today failing which they shall pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order till it is remitted. <br /> <br /> Ops no.1 and 2 shall also pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Complaint against the 3rd OP is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 22nd June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br />