Delhi

East Delhi

CC/93/2015

SUNIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 93/15

 

Dr. Sunil Sharma

R/o 79, Pushpanjali

Near Karkardooma

Vikas Marg Extension,

East Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Local Office:

Reliance Life Insurance Co.

SF-3, 1^st Floor, Aditya Mall

Near Karkardooma Courts

East Delhi – 110 092

Attached Branch

Reliance Life Insurance Co.

CDA Branch, C-4/5, Level -2

Aggarwal Cyber Plaza

Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura

New Delhi – 110 034

Corporate Office:

9^th & 10^th Floor

Building No. 2, R-Tech Park

Nirlon Compound

Behind I-Flex Building

Next to Hub Mall, Goregaon (East)

Mumbai – 400063                                                             …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 12.02.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 09.07.2018

Judgement Passed on: 23.07.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Dr. Sunil Sharma against Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.(OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on 09.02.2010, the complainant purchased two policies bearing no. 16294547 and 16294528 with annual premium of    Rs. 30,000/- each from Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) in his name and in the name of his son Shri Kunal Sharma; on the assurance of OP’s representative.  The policy term was 15 years. 

            It has been stated that the complainant was surprised to know that the policies were market linked, thus, he did not pay further premiums and requested for refund of premiums, which was not returned. 

            Again, in April 2013, the complainant received a call from one       Shri Rameshwar Dayal Mittal stating himself to the Head-Insurance, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) and informed that the premium paid by the complainant for above mentioned policies would be diverted to Fixed Deposit with maturity in December 2013 vide file Ref. No. 4904887529300/RLI.  The complainant was communicated that the FD receipts no. 77180 and 77181 and GLA no. 446559 had been allotted against previously mentioned policy no. 16294547 and 16294528. 

            The complainant has stated that on 30.05.2013, one Mr. Balbir Singh approached complainant and collected Rs. 59,855/- in the name of OP.  Thus, in total 6 deposits were made through Mr. Mittal, the representative of OP for which payments were made by cheques.

S.No.	Amount (Rs.)	Date of issuance of policy	Policy/Contract No.	Policy holder	Life assured
1.	59,855/-	30.05.2013	51011631	Sunil Sharma	Son, Kunal Sharma
2	59,417/-	04.06.2013	51017868	-do-	-do-
3	1,14,798/-	10.07.2013	51087422	-do-	-do-
4	84,647/-	30.08.2013	51173529	-do-	-do-
5	98,402/-	30.08.2013	51177921	-do-	-do-
6	98,402/-	14.09.2013	51176355	-do-	-do-
Total	5,15,521/-
7	30,000/-	FDR77180	GLA no. 446559 against previously mentioned policy No. 16294547 and 16294528	-do-	-do-
8	30,000/-	FDR 77181		-do-	Sunil Sharma
Total	5,75,521/-

 

            The complainant has further stated that the complainant was asked to only sign the proposal form and was told that the rest details would be filled by OP as per the details mentioned in photocopies of PAN card and Election Card shared by the complainant. 

            In the month of December 2013, complainant was again contacted by Mr., Mittal, the representative of OP, who convinced him to give          Rs. 5,00,000/- cash for depositing in scheme closing on 31.12.2013 for which “kuchcha receipt” was issued in the name of the spouse of the complainant.  At the same time, original policy documents were also handed over to Mr. Mohit, agent of OP for the purpose of surrendering them to the company/OP. 

            The complainant has also stated that even after lapse of maturity period, the complainant neither received the maturity amount nor any FD receipt for the cash given.  The complainant tried to contact                      Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Mittal, but all in vain.  On inquiry from OP’s office at C-4/5, Level-2, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, the complainant came to know that the policies under Reliance Life Insurance Guaranteed Money Back Plan had 15 years policy term for which 5 annual premiums were to be paid. 

            At the branch office, the complainant was informed that the complainant had been defrauded by the above mentioned Mr. R.D. Mittal and was advised to apply for duplicate policy documents as original had not been submitted to OP.  On receiving the duplicate policy documents, the complainant filed his objections regarding the wrong details mentioned in the policy bonds.  The complainant has stated that if Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Mittal was not the representative of OP, then how he had known the details of the complainant’s previous policies issued in 2010.  Thus, he has alleged connivance between the OP and said, Mr. R.D. Mittal, as OP was direct beneficiary of the scam, therefore, OP was liable and responsible to refund Rs. 5,75,521/- paid towards 6 policies as well as Rs. 5,00,000/- cash given on 26.12.2013 to Mr. Mohit, agent of OP. 

            On 29.01.2014, police complaint was filed at P.S. Anand Vihar vide DD No. 41B and FIR no. 189 under Section 420/406/34 IPC was registered.  It has been stated by the complainant that he has been receiving phone calls from OP to pay further premiums to continue his policies.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP:

1. to return the sum of Rs. 5,75,521/- with 12.5% interest from date of payment till the date of return;
2. to produce the details of its commission payout roaster in respect of the money back policies issued in the name of the complainant;
3. to refund the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- taken from the complainant in cash alongwith 12.5% interest;
4. to establish a public information and advisory system to make public any knowledge with it about similar scams being practiced in its name and to grant exemplary punitive compensation against the OP, and
5. to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-  compensation on account of mental agony, physical suffering, loss of time and costs of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed copy of relevant policy and proof of payment of premium for the same amounting to Rs. 60,000/- (Annex. C-1), copy of receipts and documents pertaining to the amount collected by OP from April 2013 to September 2013(Annex. C-2), copy of statement of bank account (Annex. C-3), copy of Kuchcha receipt issued by Mr. Mohit in the name of the spouse of the complainant (Annex. C-4), photograph of Mr. Mohit (Annex. C-5), copy of relevant documents and communications (Annex. C-6 colly.), typed copy of complaint filed with P.S. Anand Vihar (Annex. C-7) and copy of FIR received by the complainant on 16.05.2014 by speed post (Annex. C-8) alongwith complaint.

3.         OP filed their written statement upon service of notice where they took various pleas in their defence as there was no cause of action and claim of complainant was not made out under Consumer Protection Act. 

            It was submitted that complainant being an educated person had gone through the terms and conditions and as he had signed the proposal form he was bound by the same. The policy bonds had been sent to the complainant and as the complainant had failed to exercise the option of Free Look period, OP was not liable to refund of premium. 

            It was also submitted that as the issue involved, forgery and fraud, which could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings in Consumer Protection Act.  The OP has stated that OP deals only in insurance and not in any kind of fixed deposits. 

          It was admitted that complainant was called to inform him to pay the premium and in the event of failure, his policies will lapse.  Rest of the contents of the complainant have been denied.

4.       Rejoinder to WS was filed by the complainant.  It was stated that the agents of OP, Mr. R.D. Mittal alias Mr. Rahul Walia had returned the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- taken up by them in cash with suitable compensation,.  Complainant has stated that his signatures on Form 60 had been forged by the representatives of OP.  The policies issued to complainant had also been issued to one Mr. Kesvan G. Naidu.  Rest of the contents of WS were denied and those of complainant were reiterated.   

5.         The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has got himself examined.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of policy and proof of payment of premium for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of receipts and documents pertaining to the amount collected by OP from April 2013 to September 2013 (Ex.CW-1/2 colly.), copy of statement of bank account (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of Kuchcha receipt issued by Mr. Mohit  (Ex.CW-1/4), photograph of Mr. Mohit (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of relevant documents and communications  (Ex.CW-1/6 colly.), copy of complaint filed with P.S. Anand Vihar (Ex.CW-1/7), copy of FIR (Ex.CW-1/8) and all documents annexed with the replication Vihar (Ex.CW-1/9 colly.).

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Amal Srivastava, Territory Manager of Reliance Life insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) who has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of policy document of policy no. 51011631 (Ex.OP1/1), policy no. 51017868 (Ex.OP1/2), policy no. 51173529 (Ex.OP1/3), policy no. 51087422 (Ex.OP1/4), policy no. 51177921 (Ex.OP1/5), policy no. 51176355 (Ex.OP1/6), policy no. 16294528 (Ex.OP1/7) and policy no. 16294547 (Ex.OP1/8).  

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged fraud by agent of OP.  He has stated in Para 8 of his complaint that he had received documents from OP, which mentioned the receipt of Rs. 59,855/- under Guaranteed Money Back Plan policy contract no. 51011631 dated 30.05.2013 with Policy terms as 15 years maturing on 30.05.2028 and premium paying term as 5 years.  thus, when the complainant had received the policy document and simultaneous reading of the averments of complainant and Annexure C2, which is the letter issued by OP which reads “You are also requested to examine this policy document kit and if any mistakes to be found there in, please return it immediately for correction.  In the event, you are in disagreement with the terms and conditions of this plan, you may wish to opt out of this plan, by stating the reasons of your disagreement and return the policy document to the Company within 15 days of its receipt, for cancellation.  In which event, the Company will refund an amount equal to the premium paid subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period of cover less expenses incurred by the Company on your medical examination, if any and stamp duty charges”.

            Thus, when the complainant was in receipt of policy document and he did not exercise the option under Free Look Period, he cannot allege deficiency in service on unfair trade practice on part of OP.  It is settled principle of law that when the complainant has failed to exercise the option for cancellation of his policy within free look period, he cannot allege deficiency in service on part of OP, in declining to accede to the prayer for foreclosure or refund of paid premiums.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits.

            But at the same time, the complainant has alleged that he was defrauded by one R.D. Mittal and his associates and at the same time, he has alleged that his signatures on Form 60 were forged, this issue cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and needs trial.  Therefore, we give liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate forum/court for redressal of his grievance. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President