DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 16.2.2016

                                      Decided on:           22.11.2019

Gurmeet Singh S/o Mehar Singh R/o House No.149, Street No.3, Dashmesh Nagar, District Patiala 147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 31-32, 1^st Floor, New Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,(Reg. No.121), Registered Office: H-Block, 1^st Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710-India, through its Managing Director.

                                                …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate,

                                      counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1&2 ex-parte.                            

 ORDER

                                    SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Gurmeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 10.7.2012, the authorized agent/person of the OPs contacted the complainant on phone regarding life insurance policy of OPs.  The authorized agent/person told about the one time payment plan. Complainant agreed to purchase the insurance policy of one time payment plan. After that the OPs authorized agent/person sold insurance policy to the complainant of onetime payment plan. Complainant made the payment through cheque regarding the one time payment of the insurance policy. One after the other authorized agent of the OPs sold six insurance policies to the complainant by telling that all the insurance policies has onetime payment plan only. The detail of the policies is revealed as under:

3. It is alleged that when the policies came to the complainant, he came to know that these are regular premium policies.
4. It is alleged that the agent put fake signature of the complainant on all the six policies and sold the policies by misleading and cheating the complainant. The complainant got served legal notice to the OPs through his counsel Gurmeet Singh on 8.5.2015 but to no response.
5. It is alleged that the OPs have not paid any amount to the complainant. The claim has been repudiated on flimsy grounds. Complainant has suffered from mentally and physically.
6. The complainant has prayed for the payment of Rs.1,38,156/- paid total premium with interest, Rs.7,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and deficiency in service, Rs.33,000/- as legal expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony. Hence this complaint.
7. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complainant has pleaded forgery, cheating and fraud, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer, for allegations of fraud and cheating, complainant can approach Civil Court for redressal; that the complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has failed to make out deficiency of service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. He has concealed and suppressed the material relevant facts. The complaint has been filed with malafide and dishonest intention. Complainant has also twisted and distorted the facts to suit his convenience and to mislead this Forum. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence; that the OPs are entitled to special costs of Rs.25,000/- for unnecessary dragging into uncalled for litigation.
8. On merits, it is asserted that the complainant himself showed his willingness to purchase life insurance policies of the OPs and approached the adviser of the OPs and got entire information regarding all the plans of the OPs in vernacular language. After understanding all the terms and conditions, he purchased the following policies:

1. Policy No.50207103/Proposer-/LA:Gurmit Singh/Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.30,000/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date 10.7.2012/Policy documents dispatched date 12.7.2012/Policy Documents received date: 17.7.2012 via (speed Post) pod No. is EQ547709079IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.30,000/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.
2. Policy No.:-50476042/Proposer/LA: Gurmit Singh/Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.21,200/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date:31.10.2012/Policy documents dispatched date: 5.11.2012/Policy Documents received date:20.11.2012 via (speed Post) pod No. is EQ548064468IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.21200/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.
3. Policy No.:-50551229/Proposer-/LA: Gurmit Singh/Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.26690/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date:10.12.2012/Policy documents dispatched date: 12.12.2012/Policy Documents received date:17.12.2012 via (speed Post) pod No. is EQ548176725IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.26,690/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.
4. Policy No.:-50580309/Proposer-Gurmit Singh/LA-Rupinder Kaur/Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.15,200/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date:11.12.2012/Policy documents dispatched date: 13.12.2012/Policy Documents received date:17.12.2012 via (speed Post) pod No. is EQ548180234IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.15,200/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.
5. Policy No.:-50782431/Proposer/LAGurmit Singh /Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.20,200/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date:14.3.2013/Policy documents dispatched date: 22.3.2013/Policy Documents received date: 22.3.2013 via (speed Post) pod No. is EQ546511891IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.20,200/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.
6. Policy No.:-51089751/Proposer-Gurmit Singh/LA-Rupinder Kaur/Plan Name-Guaranteed Money Back Plan/Premium Amount-Rs.25,200/-Mode:Yearly/Policy Issue date:11.7.2013/Policy documents dispatched date: 13.7.2013/Policy Documents received date: 18.7.2013 via (speed Post) pod No. is EP800107984IN/Policy Term-15 Years/Premium Paying Term-5 Years/Total No. Premium Paid-1/Total amount Rs.25,200/-/Contract Status-Lapsed.

9. It is further pleaded that after receiving the proposal form and going through the entire contents of the proposal form, the underwriter of the policy, issued the detail of the insurance policies to the complainant and sent policy documents alongwith all terms and conditions of the policies. The same was duly received by the complainant and are in his possession. As per the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, IRDA Act,1999 and rules and regulations , the insured had the option to reconsider the policy under the garb of Free Look Period. The complainant did not exercise this option within this period. It clearly shows that the complainant agreed with the same.
10. It is denied that the policies have one time payment plan. The complainant was fully acquainted with the premium plan of the policies, he opted. All the averments of the complainant are denied. In the end the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
11. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of letter, Ex.C1,copies of policy documents, Exs.C2 to C6, copy of legal notice,Ex.C7, postal receipts, Exs.C8,C9.
12. Case was pending for remaining evidence of the complainant but none appeared on behalf of the OPs. As such OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.12.2017. Thereafter, the complainant closed evidence without producing further evidence.

The complainant has also submitted written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case, carefully.

13. The ld. counsel for the complainant after reiterating his version as taken in the complaint has further submitted that the complainant has alleged allegations of forgery against the authorized person of the OPs who sold the policies.
14. Of course the OPs have taken the plea that in case of forgery/fraud this Forum has no jurisdiction but there is no bar in such cases also.
15. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that earlier the OPs used to appear through counsel. On the application of the complainant, the OPs were directed by the Hon’ble State Commission to produce the document as detailed by the complainant in his application. The applicant has requested for direction to the OPs to produce original proposal forms alongwith original policies.The purpose was only to get match the signature of the complainant with the signature on the proposal forms to prove that the signature on the proposal forms are forged but the OPs failed to produce the required documents. Therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against the OPs for non production of the documents. When the adverse inference is drawn, the conclusion is that the proposal forms were bearing forged signature. Complainant has never opted for policies of regular plan. He was offered and accepted policies of one time payment plan only. Therefore, OPs have sold the policies by playing fraud, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
16. The OPs have also not produced evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence also. The complaint be accepted as prayed for.
17. To support these submissions, the ld. counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble State Commission rendered in CC No.490 of 2018 decided on 3.6.2019 in the case of Sarabjeet Singh Randhawa Vs.Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2010(1)C.P.J.312 Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2000(1) C.P.J 1 M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004(4)C.P.J.67 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmaben Himatlal Shah & Anr., 2011(2) C.P.J.383 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mona Ohri & Anr..
18. We have given careful consideration to these submissions of the complainant and gone through the case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the complainant.
19. The law laid down in the cited cases is not disputed but every case has its own facts and it is to be decided keeping in view the facts of the case.
20. The complainant himself has pleaded that he purchased the policies from the OPs from 10.7.2012 onward. The detail of the policies is also mentioned in the complaint, which shows that the complainant purchased the policies from 10.7.2012 to 11.7.2013 on different dates. Complainant has not disputed receipt of the policy documents and has rather admitted in complaint that when he received the policies, he came to know that these are regular premium policies.
21. In case the complainant has not opted for regular premium polices, he was having option to get the same cancelled within the Free Look Period.
22.  The complainant has received the first policy on 17.10.2012 which was purchased on 10.7.2012. The 2^nd policy was purchased by the complainant on 31.10.2012, which was received by him on 5.11.2012. 3^rd policy was purchased by the complainant on 10.12.2012 and received on 17.12.2012, 4^th policy was purchased on 13.12.2012 and was received on 17.12.2012, 5^th policy was purchased on 14.3.2013 and was received by the complainant on 22.3.2013 and last policy was purchased by the complainant 1n 11.7.2013, which was received by him on 18.7.2013.
23. From these facts, it can safely be inferred that the complainant has purchased the policies after gap of considerable time and after receipt of earlier policies.In case the complainant has not opted for regular policy, he was not to purchase the subsequent insurance policies. These facts go to show that the complainant himself has opted to purchase the regular policies or alternatively the complainant has not raised any objection regarding these policies.
24. The case of action accrued to the complainant on the date of receipt of policy and the complaint was to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. The last policy was purchased by the complainant on 11.7.2013.Therefore; the limitation to challenge this policy was upto 11.7.2015.Complainant challenged all the policies on 16.2.2016, which are after the period of limitation.
25. Of course, the complainant has alleged that signatures were forged on proposal forms.

Complainant himself has placed on record copies of proposal forms. In case, these signatures were forged as alleged by the complainant, then he was to raise this matter immediately after receipt of the policy documents and copies of proposal forms.

26. Keeping in view all these facts, it cannot be concluded that the OPs have sold the policies by playing any fraud. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the policies and the terms and conditions show that the policies were of regular plan.
27. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
28. As such the complaint is considered to be without merit and stands dismissed.
29.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:22.11.2019     

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President