Delhi

New Delhi

CC/155/2014

Sh. Krishan Kumar Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. DLF LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

 

                                                  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                           (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                        ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                       NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C.155/2014                                          Dated:

    In the matter of:

Sh. Krishan Kumar Sethi,

A2/13, Lane A-2, Block-A,

Krishan Nagar,

Delhi-51.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     The Managing Director,

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

 New Delhi-01.

 

2.    The Principal Officer,

Probus Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.,

124, Anupam Garden,

Manekshaw Road,

New Delhi-68.

 

3.     The Manager,

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Tower-2,

Unit No.151, Plot C-4, 5, 6, 1^st Floor,

Pitampura, Delhi-88.

 

……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

                

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a policy of OP-1 through OP-2 bearing No.000162935 w.e.f  14^th August, 2012 for a sum assured of Rs.9,35,000/- with the premium amount was Rs.59,663/-.  OP-2 took the signatures wrongfully in the above said policy form, and had mentioned wrong details of his family history i.e. height, weight and falsely shown his residence at Jaipur at the time of selling the policy. All the facts were disclosed only when the complainant received the policy document at the end of February 2013.  The complainant had already deposited two premiums of Rs.59,663/- for a total amount of Rs.1,19,326/-.  After knowing the fact, on 7.3.2013,  the complainant requested OP-3 for cancellation of the said policy and surrendered original document of the policy to them.  But on 30.3.2013, the complainant received a letter from the OP  rejecting his request of cancellation of the policy on the grounds of crossing the free-look-period. The complainant sent a reminder for the same but no response has been received till date.  Complainant also sent two legal notices dt. 8.8.2013 and 17.10.2013 to the OPs but they failed to resolve the matter, hence this complaint.

2.       Notices were issued to all the OPs but none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 9.1.2015 by the predecessor Bench.

 

3.       Complaint has been contested by OP-1 & 3.  Both the OPs have filed their  written statement jointly  wherein it denied any deficiency in services on their part and stated that the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days, during this period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation,  if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant never requested the OP for cancellation of the said policy. It is stated that he was cheated by the agent of the OP and his signatures were forged, whereas, the complainant at his own will and desire  opted for the said policy.  It is also submitted that fraud, forgery and cheating are complex question of facts, which cannot be tried in a summary proceedings, therefore, the complaint be dismissed in limine.  It is stated that OP neither received any query nor a complaint during the Free-Look-Period with respect of above mentioned policy.  The complainant for the first time contacted the OP on 7.3.2013 for cancellation of the policy, the same was duly replied by the OP though its letter dt.30.3.2013 vide which the complainant was informed that the request for cancellation of policy cannot be accepted since the same was made outside the free look provision. The complainant sent the letter and legal notices to the OP for the same purpose and the same was duly replied by the OPs.  It is further submitted that the complainant is a educated person and was completely aware of the plan details and features.  The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has misrepresented the Forum, therefore, he  is not entitled for any relief prayed.

4.       Both the parties have filed their  evidences by way of affidavit.

5.       We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.       The POD  placed on record by OP shows that the policy bond was delivered to Ms. Minakhsi on 25.8.2012. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record an additional affidavit mentioning the fact that the policy bond was handed over to him by his neighbourer,  but failed to mention the name of the neighbourer from whom he received the policy bond and on which date.  

7.       Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts on various issues such as  i) the date of  receipt of the policy bond by the complaint  ii) whether the  signature of the complainant has been  forged by OP for issuing the policy in question  iii) whether the complainant has approached OP within free-looking-period for cancellation of the policy.

8.       Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

9.       In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

 

10.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated issues such as fraud,  threatening and coercion. This issues  required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

 

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 02/07/2019.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)

                             MEMBER