This appeal is directed against the final order delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Darjeeling on 07.06.2018 in Reference to CC No. 9/ D/ 2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one R.K. Agarwal has purchased one policy from Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited through A.B. brokers of Calcutta on 13.01.2014 in the name of his grandson T. Nimani Bearing Policy No. 140814186756 for a sum of Rs. 3 Lakh 1 Rupee. Being incapable to pay the premium amount, the complainant contacted Insurance Company and he was called to Calcutta and was conveyed that the company has been black listed. Thereafter, one R. Sen and A. Choudhury the agents of the Insurance Company have informed him that a lottery of Rs. 12 Lakh has come out in the name of his grandson and they committed to release the money to the tune of Rs. 12 Lakh and then R. Sen asked him to purchase one more policy in order to get back the earlier policy amount of Rs. 3 Lakh 1 Rupee out of the price money. Then, being lured with that proposal of R. Sen he purchased another policy to the tune of Rs. 1,99,999/- on 30.09.2004 in the name of his grandson Bearing Policy No. 140814189463 and he was again lured by A. Choudhury the agent and on his assurance, he again purchased another policy of his grandson’s name on 31.03.2015 to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- Bearing Policy No. 150314359897. Thereafter, while he was not getting back the policy amount, he sent a letter to the Grievance cell of Insurance Company on 22.07.2015 but the company did not make any response. He then informed the matter by registering diary before the Darjeeling P.S Vide GDE No. 1307 dated 27.12.2015. He again served a second notice through his legal counsel on 28.12.2015 to the Grievance manager of O.P. Insurance Company and the said letter was unanswered on the part of the company. The company subsequently contacted with him and assured him that he would get back of his dues but subsequently they did not keep their promise. On the other hand he was asked to pay Rs. 35,720/- for cancellation charge and thereafter his demand would be fulfilled. In spite of making payment of such cancellation charge of Rs. 35,720/- on 22.04.2016 through Bank RTGS the Insurance Company did not perform their obligations and for that reason due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant had registered the Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Darjeeling. The Opposite Parties O.P. No. 1 and 3 have contested the case by submitting the W.V. and contended that A. B. Brokers was not made party to the case and for that reason the case was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The further case of the Opposite Parties was that the said three policies purchased by the Consumer Complainant was meant for payment terms of 10 years and policy term of 14 years and after the commencement of the policy there was a period of 15 days free lock period and during that period policy holder had the opportunity to cancel the Insurance agreement and to get back the premium amount he paid. But during the lock period the complainant did not do anything and as per terms and conditions of the alleged policies the complainant has got no relief as per DRDA regulations. The O.P. No. 2 and 4 in spite of notice did not appear before the Ld. Forum to contest the case. The contesting Opposite Parties in spite of filling W.V. did not appear subsequently to contest the case and at last the Ld. Forum has decided the instant Consumer Dispute on merit and delivered the impugned order which has been challenged here in the appeal on the part of Grievance manager and customer service of Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited. The appeal was registered after fulfilling all the necessary elements and it was admitted on its own merit and notice was duly served upon the respondent/Complainant R. K. Agarwal who has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. M. Pal and during the course of hearing Ld. Advocate of the appellant canvassed the valuable arguments and countered the opposite arguments. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pal has tendered his arguments.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocate of the appellant during the course of argument mentioned that the respondent was well aware at the time of taking the policy about the terms and conditions and he himself affixed his signature on the proposal forms and the company has made a pre issuance verification call to the respondent for each policy to confirm the details and terms and conditions of the plans mentioned in the proposal forms and during that pre-issuance call the respondent had confirmed that he has signed the proposal form and benefit illustration. Thereafter, the three policies were issued one after another after taking full consent of the respondent/policy purchaser. He further argued that as per DRDA rules and regulations 2002. The company had sent the policy documents to the address of the respondent who has got ample opportunity to go through the terms and condition of each policy and he never approached the company for cancellation of the policy during the free-lock period of 15 days and he was well informed that all the policies were a long-time policy and to enjoy the benefit of the policy the respondent should have continued the policy and he agreed to go on making payment of annual premium for the next 10 years and subsequently he has unilaterally infringed the terms and conditions of the policy and registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Forum which was frivolous and the Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the merit of the case in a lawful manner. In support of his argument Ld. Advocate has referred some judicial decisions reported as follows….
- (2012) 4 CPJ 690 and CPR 383
- (2013) 3 CPJ 536 to 546
- (2014) 3 CPJ 154 and (2014) to CPR 706
After going through all the judicial decisions cited above, we find that as per DRDA rules/ regulations at least 3 consecutive premiums should have to be paid towards the policy and thereafter he can claim refund money if the insured failed to make payment of the policy amount of full terms. Ld. Advocate of the respondent countered the argument that in this particular case the matter is very different one as because the policy purchaser a very humble man who is very simple and innocent being a hilly man and he was de-frauded by the brokers of the Insurance Company and compelled him to purchase one by one policies within a short span of time by misrepresenting him that the instant policy was single payment one. He further argued that if he was well aware about the terms and conditions of the policies, he could not purchase the policies one by one and being a layman, he was totally unaware about the conditions of the policies and the brokers of the Insurance Company has induced him to purchase the said policies one by one only to gain their Commissions and an old man has fallen into trap of greedy brokers. We know very well that when a man purchases a policy for long terms there is permissible limit to cancel the said policy within the free- lock period. Here in this case being a layman he was in very misconception that the policy was purchased for only one-year term and he had to get back the money after one year and he was falsely misrepresented in this respect by the agents and thereafter he was de-frauded again and some how the agents have squeezed the money one after another and ultimately the company has obtained illegal money from the insured by imposing cancellation charge of 35,720/-. The intentions of the agents and the intentions of managerial staff of Insurance Company are very much clear to de-fraud a layman by putting him into a trap and Ld. Forum after considering all aspect of this case has passed the impugned order very judiciously and no de-merits are reflected in the order of Ld. Forum and this Commission finds no necessity to go on interference with the final order of the Ld. Forum. However, for the interest of justice if the Insurance Company that is the appellants of this case complies the order of the Ld. Forum within two months from this day in making payment of the awarded money, they will be relieved from paying interest as additional at the rate of 6% Per-annum which has been imposed on them by the order of the Ld. Forum. Thus, the appeal could not be succeeded.
Hence, it is ordered
That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Darjeeling dated 07.06.2018 in CC No. 09.02.2016 is hereby confirmed. The appellants are asked to pay the entire awarded money as directed by the Ld. Forum within 60 days from this day and thenz9 they will be absolved from making payment of further interest at the rate of 6% Per-annum as imposed. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties of appeal free of cost and the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Darjeeling through e-mail.
