BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 229 of 2014

Date of Instt. 10.7.2014

Date of Decision :2.12.2014

Balwinder Kumar aged about 57 years, son of Bakshi Ram R/o Mohalla Kot Sadiq, Kala Sanghian Road, PO Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Ist Floor, Midas Corporate Park, No.37, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Director/Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd, H Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra 400710(India) through its Manager Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Lovekesh Gupta Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

Ms.Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

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 an agent of opposite parties approached complainant and told the complainant that the opposite parties have launched a policy for 15 years in which the money has to be deposited only for 5 years and in case of natural death Rs.10 Lacs and in case of accident Rs.20 Lacs would be given. He further told the complainant that its premium would be Rs.49,990/- per year to be paid only for five years. Allured from the averments of agent of opposite parties, the complainant opted to purchase two policies. As demanded by agent of opposite parties, the complainant gave two cheques of Rs.49,990/- each (total amount of Rs.99980/-) of Overseas Bank, GT Road, Jalandhar in the names of opposite parties which amount was withdrawn by opposite parties from complainant's bank account on 20.8.2013. The agent of opposite parties took sign of complainant on some blank proposal form applications and assured the complainant to fill-up the said application forms carefully later on saying that the proposal form is lengthly, so it would take much time for filling-up. The complainant agreed with his version and signed on the blank proposal application forms. Later on the complainant came to know from the office of opposite party No.1 that there is no such type of policy of 15 years in which premium is paid upto 5 years and to give Rs.10 Lacs for natural death and Rs.20 Lacs for accident. On 30.11.2013 the complainant gave an application to opposite party No.1 requesting to cancel both proposal forms policy applications Nos.D6526510 and D6526511 and further requested to refund the entire advance paid premium amount as the complainant is not able to continue the same. The opposite party No.1 received application from complainant on 30.11.2013. On receipt of above said application the opposite parties cancelled only one proposal form application (No.6526511) and refunded its amount of Rs.49,990/-. But the opposite parties neither cancelled the Ist proposal application No.D6526510 nor refunded the premium of Rs.49,990/- received vide this application. Several times the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 but every time the opposite party No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or other. Instead of giving refund & cancelling the proposal application No.D6526510, the opposite party No.2 issued the insurance policy vide their issuing dated 29.11.2013 which the complainant did not desire. As per policy conditions, para 1, free look, it has been clearly mentioned that if the insurer disagree with any of the terms and conditions, he may return the policy to company within 15 days from receipt for cancellation, stating objection and the insured shall be entitled to get refund of the premium paid. The policy was issued on 29.11.2013 and an application for cancellation of policy and refund of premium was given on 30.11.2013. Hence, the application of complainant falls under free look period which the opposite parties did not care. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the premium amount of Rs.49,990/- alongwith interest. He has also demand compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the record of the opposite parties the complainant proposed for two insurance policies and submitted proposal form No.D6526510 on 18.11.2013 alongwith cheque No.904102 dated 17.11.2013 of Rs.49,990/- and proposal form No.D6526511 alongwith cheque of Rs.49,990/-. Thereafter answering opposite parties vide letter dated 21.11.2013 asked the complainant to provide CFR i.e level 2 medical under proposal No.D6526511 but the complainant did not provide the same. However the answering opposite parties issued the policy No.51315445 under proposal No.D6526510 as the sum assured under the policy was of Rs.1,87,302/- only. It is totally wrong that the complainant signed the blank proposal form. The complainant in proposal form disclosed himself to be a Govt.Employee in PSPCL and as such it is not possible to sign the blank papers as alleged by the complainant. The complainant signed the proposal forms after reading and understanding the contents thereof to be correct. Policy schedule signed by the complainant itself states the premium paying term, policy term and as such he was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature as well as the plan opted by him. The complainant provided all his detail in the proposal form. Thereafter on the basis of proposal form and documents, the answering opposite parties issued policy No.51315445 and the policy for the proposal form No.D6526511 was kept pending for the want of required document. The complainant did not made any request for the cancellation of the policy as alleged. The alleged letter is forged, fabricated and fictitious document and has been prepared by the complainant only to play fraud with the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said letter the round stamp has been shown against the forged signature of Harish Kumar. The branch office Jalandhar stopped to use the round stamp since long and only using the square specified stamp. Moreover no request for the cancellation of the policy is entertained without submitting the requisite documents i.e for closure payout form, cancelled cheque, original policy bond etc. But in the present case, the policy in question was issued on 29.11.2013 and dispatched on 2.12.2013 and as such the complainant has no occasion to make the request for cancellation of policy on 30.11.2013 which clearly shows that the said letter is forged and fictitious document. However the opposite parties will initiate criminal proceeding against the complainant for producing forged document before the Forum. If the complainant had submitted the request for the cancellation of policy within the free look period, then there was no occasion for the opposite parties not to cancel the policy. The complainant has concocted false story and produced forged and fictitious document. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP and Ex.OP/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/K and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard complainant in person and learned counsel for opposite parties.

6. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant himself pleaded that he opted to purchase two policies and gave two cheques of Rs.49990/- each. Complainant has contended that signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank forms by the agent of the opposite parties. Where any person signs any document, the presumption is that he has signed the same after full understanding its contents.

7. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd & Anr. Versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

8. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. There is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant that his signatures were obtained on the proposal form by mis-representation or fraud. So above version of the complainant can not be accepted. Complainant has contended that policies were received by him on 29.11.2013 and he gave application dated 30.11.2013 Ex.C-1 for cancellation of the two policies i.e within free look period but the opposite parties only refunded the premium of one policy and did not refund the premium of second policy and instead thereof issued the policy. On the other hand the version of the opposite parties is that premium of one policy was refunded to the complainant as he has failed to fulfill the requirements. Further according to the opposite parties, complainant never submitted any request for cancellation of policy within free look period and the letter dated 30.11.2013 Ex.C-1 in this regard is forged and fabricated document. Further according to the opposite parties even stamp affixed on it, is forged one. So the question of forgery is involved in the present complaint. It is in the affidavit Ex.OP of Parum Gupta, Authorized Signatory of opposite party insurance company that the complainant has produced forged and fabricated letter dated 30.11.2013 vide which he made the request for the cancellation of policy, the said letter is forged and fictitious documents. The signature of the official namely Harish Kumar as well as the round stamp is forged one. There is a clear cut forgery on the part of complainant and to prove the forgery on the part of complainant detailed evidence is required i.e examination and cross examination of the witness which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer fora. Opposite parties have also filed affidavit Ex.OP1 of Harish Kumar, Customer Executive of opposite party insurance company who has stated that he has seen letter dated 30.11.2013 and same was not received by him and signatures on the said letter is clear cut forgery of his signatures. It is further in his affidavit that company stopped to use the round stamp since long and in the month of November 2013, the square stamp was used and as such question of using round stamp does not arise at all. It is further in his affidavit that complainant has produced forged and fictitious letter dated 30.11.2013. The opposite parties have also produced on record certain documents i.e Ex.OP1/F, ex.OP1/G and Ex.OP1/I, where on square stamp is affixed. So question of forgery raised by the opposite parties can not be decided in the present summary proceedings. For deciding the question of forgery the appropriate forum is Civil Court. To decide the question of forgery detailed evidence including examination and cross examination of witnesses and further evidence of handwriting expert is required. Consequently in the above circumstances, the complainant is relegated to Civil Court for redressal of his grievance and the present complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

2.12.2014 Member President