Order No. 16 dt. 16/05/2017
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant no.1 on the request o the agent of o.p. no.1 purchased a HDFC Life Insurance Policy. In response to the request of the agent the complainant no.1 issued a cheque and after receiving the policy the complainant no.2 being a student astonished to find that her name has been incorporated in the said policy. The policy was not purchased by her at all. The complainant no.2 was no way involved in the said transaction and she did not put her signature in the form which was filled up by o.ps. The complainant no.1 issued the cheque believing that the policy would be issued in his name but o.p. HDFC hood-winked the complainant no.1and issued the policy in the name of the complainant no.2. Because of such malpractice adopted by o.ps. the complainant prayed for cancellation of the policy as well as refund of the amount paid by the complainant no.1 to tune of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that on receiving the proposal form a policy was issued in the name of the complainant no.2. The policy was for a term of 30 years with annual premium of Rs.30,000/- payable for 7 years. The original policy documents were duly dispatched on 28.3.13 and after receiving the original policy did not raise any objection and did not pray for cancellation of the policy which they could have done the same and prayed for refund of the amount. The o.p. no.1 stated that by making false allegation against the o.ps. the complainants filed this case which is not at all maintainable and thereby o.no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.2 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant no.1 purchased the policy from o.ps.
- Whether the o.ps. took any mischief means to issue policy in the name of the complainant no.2.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the complainant no.1 is a retired person and he was convinced by the agent of o.p. no.1 to purchase the policy. Though the complainant no.1 being a retired person expressed that being a senior citizen it is not possible for him to purchase the policy at the matured age of more than 70 years. The agent in spite of same insisted for purchasing the policy and accordingly the complainant no.1 was assured that the policy will cover the life of the complainant no.1. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant no.1 issued a cheque but whenever the complainant no.1 received the policy he found that the policy was issued in the name of her niece, the complainant no.2 who is an unemployed and she is a student and it was not possible for her to continue with the policy. Since the o.p. no.1 through their agent hood-winked the complainant, thereby the complainants prayed for refund of the amount paid by the complainant no.1 and also compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that o.p. no.1 after receiving the policy form and the cheque and after acceptance of all the papers and scrutinizing the same it was found that as per the direction of the complainant no.1 the policy was issued in the name of the complainant no.2. The said policy was issued on 23.3.13 which was received by the complainant no.1 on 28.3.13. After receiving the said policy o.ps. received a written complaint from the complainant no.2 alleging forgery of her signature stating that she never applied for the policy. Upon receipt of the complaint o.p. no.1 sent a reply dt.12.4.13 informing the complainant no.2 that in order to investigate the complaint lodged by the complainant no.2 clear copies of her signature proof is required to be submitted. The o.p. no.1 further informed that in order to avail cancellation within free look period the complainant no.2 was required to submit a confirmation letter along with the original policy document within 20 days from the date of receipt of the letter. In spite of receipt of the reply of o.p. no.1 the complainant no.2 neither deposited her signature proof to proceed with the investigation nor deposited the original policy document along with the confirmation for free look cancellation. Since the complainants did not take any step, therefore the policy reached to lapse status due to non receipt of the renewal premium. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant no.1 is a senior citizen and at the time of apply for the policy he was aged about 70 years. Though he had stated that at the time of the conversion with the agent of o.p. no.1 he expressed his desire not to apply for the policy but the agent convinced him to apply for the policy. It is hardly believable that the complainant no.1 being a senior citizen and retired govt. official would believe on the misrepresentation of the said agent. It is also not believable as to how the agent got the name of the niece of the complainant no.1. It is also surprising to note that after receiving the policy while the complainant no.2 lodged a protest letter and while o.p. no.1 asked the complainant no.2 to submit her signature proof along with other documents, but o.p. no.2 did not assist the o.p. no.1. The complainant no.2 was given the opportunity to get the refund of the premium amount within the free look period, but the complainant no.2 did not take any step and did not put her signature on the papers for investigation as well as did not return the original policy and since no step was taken on behalf of the complainants, the o.p. no.1 had no other alternative the policy was declared as lapse status due to non-receipt of renewal premium. In view of the said facts and circumstances, wse hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainants will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.38/2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.2 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
