BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.95 of 2015

Date of Instt. 11.03.2015

Date of Decision :11.08.2015

Jai Kohli son of Late Mr.Prof.V.K.Kohli R/o 38, Tagore Park, Professor Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Brigade Seshamahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Banglore-560004 through its Chief Operating Officer.

2. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, 261, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission, Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

3. Mohit Dewan, Sales Person, PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission, Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rajinder Narula Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.HS Kohli Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is in profession of coaching and related assignments who is unmarried and his father has expired since long and complainant is having a responsibility of his mother who is old. One of representative of opposite party No.1 who is opposite party No.3 contacted complainant and introduced him with the policies of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 told complainant that he is sales person of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is the head office of opposite parties No.2. Since opposite party No.1 has very high reputation in our country, so complainant has accepted to have talk with opposite party's representative i.e opposite party No.3 at the residence of complainant at Jalandhar. Opposite party No.3 came to the residence of the complainant situated at Jalandhar and complainant in presence of his mother namely Sudha Kohli has clearly mentioned opposite party No.3 that he is only interested in one time investment i.e single premium plan as complainant do not have high monthly income and complainant has also clearly mentioned opposite party No.3 that he is only interested in risk free and legal investment as his savings are hard earned money of his family and in no condition he wants to ruin the savings. Opposite party No.3 has convinced on behalf of opposite party No.1 that opposite party No.1 is doing only legal investments and thus is highly reliable one. Opposite party No.3 has convinced complainant with regard to two life insurance policies of opposite party No.1 having only one time investment i.e single premium plan of Rs.1,99,080/- and Rs.90,069/- and also assured complainant that he will get after completion of five years double of the principal amount of Rs.1,90,088/- that amounts to Rs.3,80,176/- and for second policy he will get after completion of five years period double the principal amount of Rs.90,069/- that amounts to Rs.1,80,138. Complainant was interested in similar kind of one time investment and thus complainant has accepted above mentioned policy of opposite party No.1 duly mentioned in the head note after again taking assurance that it relates to only single premium plan and after confirmation by opposite party No.3 complainant has completed the documentation alongwith complainant has given the original copies of his income tax returns. The complainant at his Jalandhar residence in presence of his mother has filled and signed the account payee cheque of premium having cheque No.100930 dated 28.2.2013 amounting Rs.1,90,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Maqsudan, Jalandhar and cheque No.109232 dated 21.3.2013 amounting to Rs.90,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Maqsudan, Jalandhar and handed over the cheques to the opposite party No.3 alongwith cash of Rs.200/-. The opposite party No.3 received the cheques at Jalandhar on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and he assured the complainant that he will come again on clearing of the cheques to take signature of the complainant but opposite party No.3 did not come rather policy was received by complainant. Afterwards opposite party No.1 has sent the policy to complainant which was never signed by complainant and to utter shock of complainant the policy was not of single premium plan rather having annual premium frequency of like amount for 20 years and economical position of complainant in no case allowed him to make a periodic investment of like amount after lapse of each year. Complainant immediately contacted opposite party No.3 and enquired about the policy but he assured complainant that it is single premium plan policy but inadvertently the wrong policy has been sent to him and opposite party No.3 further assured complainant that after few weeks he would get the correct policy of having only one time investment. Complainant has great faith on the reputation of opposite party No.1 and he remained silent for few weeks but no fresh policy has been delivered to complainant. Then complainant visited opposite party No.2 and enquired about the policy where officially it was informed that policy has premium of 20 years and not a single premium plan. The complainant gave written complaint to cancel the policy as complainant has no capacity to pay such a hefty amount each year and opposite party No.2 endorsed on the application of the complainant as "received" on 9.9.2013 for cancellation of the policy but no concrete action was taken by opposite party No.2. Afterwards complainant sent numerous reminders to cancel the policy and return the premium paid by complainant but of no use. Complainant also came to know that opposite party No.3 has attached the false and fabricated income tax returns of complainant which were never provided by complainant. Complainant has provided his income tax returns of just Rs.2,60,923/- for FY 2010-11 as complainant is investing Rs.1,90,088 and Rs.90,069/- only one time but the original returns were not sufficient for Rs.1,90,088 and Rs.90,069/- as regular annual premium for 20 years as such opposite party No.3 to enhance the financial capacity of complainant has fabricated the income tax returns showing annual income of Rs.5,50,000/- in policy for which complainant has been defrauded. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,46,157/- as compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared but only opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed a written reply pleading that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product "Met Sukh" policy voluntarily applied for two policies by filling up the proposal forms vide application no.172643625 and 172541771. In the application bearing No.172643625, the complainant was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.1,90,987.65/- for a premium paying term of 20 years and against a sum assured of Rs.18,34,000/-. Whilst in the application bearing No.172541771, the complainant was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.90,068.70/- for a premium paying term of 20 years and against a sum assured of Rs.8,69,000/-. The complainant had also signed a declaration for Unit Linked Products and Benfit Illustration Form for the above mentioned policies and therefore, he was well aware of the terms and conditions pertaining to the given policies. It is submitted that upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form alongwith the initial premium of Rs.1,90,088/- against the application 172643625, the opposite party evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.21032607 on 11.3.2013. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 15.3.2013 through Blue Dart Courier bearing POD No.40440890000. Similarly, upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form bearing No.172541771 alongwith the initial premium of Rs.90,066/- against the application, the opposite party evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.21049406 on 26.3.2013. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 1.4.2013 through Blue Dart Courier bearing POD No.40431288811. It is submitted that the policy documents were duly delivered to the complainant on 18.3.2013. It is submitted that the welcome letter categorically stated that in case, the complainant disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he may return the policy within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the documents pursuant to clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the aforementioned policies in pursuance with the consent of the complainant and the complainant had read and then signed it. The complainant had also signed the Benefit Illustration Form which shows that he had understood the terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, the proposal form had also been signed by a witness in whose presence the proposal forms were filled and signed by the complainant. Without prejudice, even then if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions, he could have sought cancellation of the policies within the statutory free look period. However, the complainant failed to avail the said opportunity and the contract of insurance had attained finality. It is submitted that the opposite party had timely replied to all the letters of the complainant and had declined the requests for cancellation of the policies in view of the same being beyond the free look period. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not file any written reply inspite of various opportunities and as such he was debarred from filing any written reply.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant has applied for single premium policy and proposal form of the policy issued by the opposite parties was never signed by the complainant. He further contended that even the income tax returns submitted by the complainant to show his financial position has been forged by the opposite parties. So the complainant is raising question of forgery. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically pleaded that afterwards opposite party No.1 has sent the policy to complainant which was never signed by him. Further in this para, the complainant has further pleaded that he also came to know that opposite party No.3 has attached the false and fabricated income tax returns which were never provided by him and he has provided his income tax returns of just Rs.2,60,923/- for financial year 2010-11 as complainant was investing Rs.1,90,088/- and Rs.90,069/- for one time but the original returns were not sufficient for Rs.1,90,088/- and Rs.90,069/- as regular annual premium for 20 years, as such opposite party No.3 to enhance the financial capacity of complainant has fabricated the income tax returns showing income of Rs.5,50,000/- in policy for which he has been defrauded. These facts are also mentioned in the affidavit of the complainant. In email dated 9.11.2013 Ex.C8 sent by the complainant to opposite party insurance company, he has alleged as under:-

" Application form was not filled by me, from cheques your agent copied my signature on application form. In my policy No.21032607 in application form copy row 'B. Policyholder/nominee details' it is not my signature. Also in row 'Medical details and family history of the proposed insured' it is not my signature. I have not signed any application form. Please use some expert".

8. The question of forgery can not be decided effectively in the present summary proceedings. To determine forgery detailed inquiry and evidence is required. Even evidence of handwriting expert is also required. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(3) Apex Court Judgment 365 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the document (i.e proposal forms) produced by the appellant.

The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.

The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by a appropriate court of law and not by the Commission".

9. In M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd and others Vs. Bhupinder Singh, First appeal No. 297 of 2011, decided on 09.01.2012 by Hon'ble State Commission of Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been observed as under:-

"In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of fraud, cheating and conspiracy could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down in M/s Sincihal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided the National Commission. Since the disputed, complicated and complex questions are involved, as to whether, Annexure R-1, proposal form and declaration bear the signatures of Jai Teging Singh and whether Annexure R-2 assignment form bear his signatures and the signatures of the complainant or were forged by the Opposite Party No.3. In our opinion, for proving the same elaborate examination of the witnesses, their cross-examination, and a lot of documentary evidence, are required. Not only this, even comparison of the disputed signatures of Jai Teging Singh on the proposal form, as also, on the assignment notice and disputed signatures of his father, on the said form, is required to be made by the Forensic Expert, with their specimen signatures/standard signatures, to arrive at truth. Such disputed, complex and complicated matters can only be adjudicated upon by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being correct, is accepted."

Similarly, in case Daljit Singh Dogra Vs. ING Vysya Bank Ltd and others 2009 (4) CLT page 22, the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab has observed as under:-

" All these facts and circumstances narrated here-in-above clearly lead us to the conclusion that disputed questions arises in this complaint which need a detailed and thorough investigation in to the facts which is incapable of being undertaken in these summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Punj Lyoyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. 1(2009) CPJ 10 (SC) was pleased to observe that the parties can be relegated to the civil court after notice to the opposite party and after coming to know the nature of pleadings of the parties and the nature of questions involved in the complaint which needed to be answered and the scope of inquiry Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the whole law on the subject and was pleased to observe as under:-

"When pleadings of both the parties were made available before the Commission, only then the Commission should have formed an opinion as to the nature and,scope of inquiry i.e. whether the facts which arose for decision on the basis of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation of facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner, then only the Commission should have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of relegating the complaint to a Civil Court.

We reach the conclusion that the nature and scope of inquiry involved in the complaint needs complicated investigation of facts which cannot be undertaken in these summary proceedings. It needs lot of evidence documentary, oral and expert".

10. The ratio of these authorities is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. So in our opinion, the dispute involved in the present complaint can not be effectively decided in the present summary proceedings and further on the basis of evidence on record. To decide the question of forgery appropriate forum is civil court.

11. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum or court. There shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

11.08.2015 Member Member President