This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            By filing this complaint the complainant has alleged that in the last week of November, 2011 two agents of OPs went to the complainant’s house and convinced the complainant to issue a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the Insurance Company for three years terms with maturity of Rs.50,000/- because above fixed deposit insurance policy will be in force for 15 days and for the above reason on good faith complainant handed over a cheque of Rs.25,000/- to the OP’s agent being cheque No.449525 drawn on UCO Bank, Sodepur Branch, Kolkata and the nominee of the complainant is Archisman Bandyopadhyay, grandson of the complainant and the above fixed deposit insurance policy was approved on oral discussion and the OP’s agent.  Subsequently, in first week of December, 2012 complainant received one policy No.19528718 but the name of the policy was found Money Multiplier Plan, and payment of premium for 10 years and maturity date ended on 29-11-2021 instead of 3 years and money was accepted at the time by the OPs for such application.  After observing this it was found that some fake sign and false signature by the complainant and nominee were there and thereafter went to the nearest OP’s Office within 7 days but said office directed the complainant for dealing the matter after 15 days as their officer was absent and so, complainant went further to the dealing officer of that OP’s office who requested to fill up a form for necessary rectification but no action was taken.  Thereafter, complainant sent a letter to the OP for cancellation of the document on 17-01-2012 but OP declared they are unable to cancel the policy but requested to pay premium per year and unpaid the policy will be lapsed as per policy term.

            Finding no other alternative complainant appeared before this Forum being an aged person of about 74 years and practically he is cheated by the OPs’s agent and also OPs in the circumstances, the complaint is filed.

            On the other hand, the OP by filing written version has submitted that the entire allegation of the complainant is false and further mere complainant being an educated person knowing fully well contains of the proposal form submitted it and for some ill purpose subsequently raised such objection when within free look period cancellation was not made and moreover this OP has nothing to do but complainant shall have to abide by the provision of law as enumerated in the contract and complainant cannot go beyond the contract.  So, the present complaint should be dismissed and moreover such a complaint is not tenable in view of the fact it is contractual liability of the parties and only Civil Court can decide it.

Decision with Reasons

After considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and also considering the main document that the policy document it is found that signature of the nominee was manipulated by the agents or the office of the OP’s Company because the nominees name is Archisman Bandyopadhyay whereas someone signed as Archis Bandyopadhyay and one fake document was filed that nominee is Archis Bandyopadhyay.  Another factor is that the signature of the present complainant was also manipulated against the column name of the proposer because with actual signature and after considering the admitted signature of the Biswanath Bandyopadhyay as life assured and on comparison those signatures with name of proposer Biswanath Bandyopadhyay it is found that same has been manipulated.  Fact remains the document/policy was collected with two signatures of Biswanath Bandyopadhyay and thereafter some other signature was made by the agent or the men or the office of the OP and document was prepared and it is also proved that the name of nominee is Archisman Bandyopadhyay but his signature was written by the broker or agent of the Reliance C0ompany which is proved and another factor is that complainant forthwith within 15 days went to the office of the local Reliance Office and submitted a compliant on 15-06-2012 but that was turned down by the local Reliance Office and fact remains there are some brokers or agents of the Reliance Company who are cheating the public in such a fashion and it is the common practice of Reliance Company’s Agent or agents of some other private company like Bajaj Allianz, TATA AIG and some other company and in fact when the agents appeared before any customer generally customers are not aware of different conditions and hearing the convincing word of agents they purchase it for benefit but ultimately those are not beneficial but the policy becomes dead cell to the customers.

            At first it must be proved that any part of the document is not manufacture but that has not been challenged by the OP regarding the allegations of the complaint then question is if the document is found particularly manufactured then the execution of the document by the complainant is not within his knowledge and truth is that entire part is filled up by the so called brokers, agents who are cheating in the market in such a fashion and if the brokers and agents are not in the market the Reliance Company of the West Bengal shall be closed down.  On overall evaluation of the entire situation, fact and circumstances, it is found that in 74 years old age complainant was cheated by the agent and broker of the OPs and they managed to procure this document(insurance policy) and, in fact, in the insurance policy in some columns the signature of Biswanath Bandyopadhyay was manipulated and nominee’s signature was also manipulated for which we must not rely upon the document as valid document between the parties and in view of the above fact we are convinced to hold that complainant took all steps within free look period but that was not properly entertained only to harass the complainant so that in the mean time the complainant may lose his right to cancel the same and it is the common practice of the Reliance Insurance, Bajaj Allianz, TATA AIG and some other company.

            Fact remains in this case Ld. Lawyer for the OPs submitted one unreported ruling of FA No. 17 of 2013 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dated 21-09-2011 and tried to convince that this Forum cannot go beyond the contract.  Giving all respect to the judgment and also agreeing with the view of the judgment we can say that the fact of that case is completely different from the present case and in this case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that entire policy document was not executed by the complainant and many vacant portion was manipulated by the brokers and agents of the OPs so, this document cannot be taken as a valid document of contract.

            At the same time we can say without hesitation that no prudent man shall purchase such a policy at the age of 74 years for long time period and when condition to pay is Rs.25,000/- per year for another 10 years.  And considering the above aspect and back history of preparation of the said policy document by the agents or office we are convinced to hold that the complainant was cheated by the agents or brokers of the OPs and OPs are dealing such business by spreading such brokers or dalal or agent who are practicing such unfair practice for collecting money and procuring such unfaithful document back behind the knowledge of the customers.  In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that OPs practice of procuring such documents from the hands of the customer through their brokers, dalal or agents is completely unethical, immoral and present policy document is not a valid document and it is procreated and it is procured by the OP through their agent and for which the entire amount which was received by the OP through their dalal and brokers and the agents must be returned to the complainant within one month from the date of this order with a compensation of rs.5,000/- for harassing the present customer and dishonour the customer as complainant.  In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) against the OPs.

            OPs are directed to issue a cheque of Rs.25,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also interest and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) i.e. total Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two thousand only) in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order positively failing which the OPs shall have to pay punitive damages @Rs.200/- (at the rate of Rupees Two hundred only) per day for non-compliance and disobeyance of the Forum’s order till full satisfaction of the decree to the State Consumer Welfare Fund even if any reason OPs tried to disobey the Forum’s order in that case penal action shall be started against them and for that their officer may be sent to jail for repeated disobeyance of the Forum’s order as per provision of Section.27 of the C.P. Act.