Complainant Gurdarshan Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the entire balance amount pertaining to the Market Return Plan of 2008 alongwith the total amount of Policies i.e. Rs.1,67,900/- of the Policies of 2014 alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental and physical agony alongwith future interest @ 12% P.A. from the filing of this complaint for deficiency of services and for playing fraud with him, in the interest of justice.

2.            The case of the complainant in brief is that he invested the    following amounts in Reliance Market Return Plans with the opposite party:-

The amount of abovesaid policies was withdrawn by him on the relevant dates.  One Rishi Verma stated to be posted in the office of opposite party no.1 called him on phone on 24.12.2013 and informed him that he has not been paid the total amount of abovesaid policies. He also told him that an amount of Rs.4,77,209/- is still to be paid to him by the opposite parties which was not paid due to fault/mistake of their agent, therefore, he should take another policy so that the remaining amount be transferred in his I.D. because earlier I.D. was issued in the name of agent. On the proposal and assurance of Rishi Verma, an employee and the officer of the opposite party, he sent a Demand Draft of Rs.49,900/- bearing No.361364 dated 26/12/2013 in the account of the opposite parties. On 3.1.2014 said Rishi Verma again informed him that one more policy is required to make the payment of remaining amount therefore, he deposited Rs.32,000/- in the shape of Demand Draft bearing no.3483 dated 3.1.2014 with the opposite party. He has next pleaded that on 21.04.2014 Rishi Verma told him on mobile that his Income Tax is being deducted from the policies, therefore, he is required to take third policy. He deposited Rs.27,000/- vide Demand Draft bearing no.251077 dated 21.04.2014 with the opposite party as such third policy bearing No.51618541 was issued by the opposite party. After some days one Hardeep Singh was got introduced by Rishi Verma on mobile by stating that Hardeep Singh is a Regional Head, therefore, he is required to take one more policy from the opposite party, therefore, he deposited Rs.43,000/- vide Draft No.251346 dated 26.05.2014 to the opposite party at the assurance of Rishi Verma and Hardeep Singh and as such policy bearing No.51659230 was issued by the opposite party. After some days, he received registered letter from Hardeep Singh containing one blank paper in the said letter. On enquiry, Hardeep Singh told him that he has sent a cheque to him. One more policy was proposed because one Om Parkash agent of the opposite party has committed fault and wrongly inserted his own I.D. number therefore, one more policy is required to clear the anomaly. He again sent a Demand Draft of Rs.16,000/- bearing No.251769 dated 23.07.2014 to the opposite party, so a policy bearing no.51775418 was issued by the opposite party. After some days he requested said Rishi Verma and Hardeep Singh as to why the remaining payment of policies is not being released. They delayed the matter on one or the other pretext and kept him in dark. Hardeep Singh also asked him to deposit Rs.17,500/- with LIC but he refused to deposit the same amount and lodged a complaint with I.R.D.A. Grievance Cell Call Center No.155255 on 7.11.2014 but no action was taken on it. He has next pleaded that he has not received the full and final remaining payment of Reliance Market Return Plans. Rishi Verma and Hareep Singh further allured and induced him to take new policies by suppressing material facts and they indulged in unlawful and unfair trade practice in order to get policies. In fact, he was only concerned with his remaining amount of his Reliance Market Return Plan issued in the year of 2008 but he was never interested to take new Policies which were procured illegally due to misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the opposite parties. The opposite parties instead of paying the balance amount of the policies pertaining to the year 2008 are pressing him to deposit premium of the new policies which were issued in his name and his wife. The amount of new policies was required to be released alongwith balance of Market Return Plan pertaining to the year of 2008. The opposite parties through their employees namely Rishi Verma and Hardeep Singh has cheated with the innocent persons and issued new policy in the year of 2014 by taking huge amount on the vague and false pleas for releasing the balance amount of Market Return Plan of 2008. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections challenged the maintainability of the complaint and has stated that complainant has concealed and has suppressed the material and relevant facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it was stated that it was wrong and denied that one Rishi Verma posted in the office of opposite parties and call the complainant on 24.12.2013 and informed the complainant that he has not been paid the total amount of polices. The opposite party has not paid alleged due of Rs.4,77,209/- to the complainant due to any fault or mistake of their agent. Complainant has received all the eligible refund alongwith information related to his policies. It was further submitted that on the request of the complainant the policy in question was issued to the complainant. Rishi Verma is not an employee of opposite parties. The issuance of policy against premium payment through demand draft of Rs.32,000/- bearing D.No.3483 which was again issued as per request of complainant. The complainant himself provided all the details in proposal form to opposite parties and also opted the premium schedule as per his own ease which itself substantiate policy was opted with full intelligence by complainant. It was wrong and denied that any Rishi Verma informed complainant to make alleged payment a policy is required.   It was correct that issuance of policy against premium payment through demand draft of Rs.43,000/- bearing D.No.251346 which was again issued as per request of complainant only. The issuance of policy no.51775418 against premium payment through demand draft of Rs.16,000/- which was again issued as per request of Lakhbir Kaur wife of complainant. The opposite parties have no concern with LIC and further, it seems that complainant has placed this alleged version in complaint to support his unreal demand. It was further submitted that as per clause 12.2. of the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy will acquire a paid up status provided the first three premium have been paid in full and three policy years have been completed. In the present case the complainant paid only one premium of his current policies. Therefore, no amount is payable to the complainant. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.        

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and of Sh.Dheeraj Dhawan Ex.C19 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and Ex.C20 and closed the evidence. 
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Authorised Signatory Ex.OP-1,2,3/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP,1,2,3/1 to Ex.OP,1,2,3/14 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint. We find that the present complaint pertains to the complainant’s allegation of mis-selling of the related Insurance Policies by the OP insurers’ agents/representatives and on the other hand opposite party have out rightly rejected the allegations  and have rather denied having any Rishi Verma as their Agent/representative  and thus the inter-se imputations involve many complex & complicated questions of fact that are not feasible to resolve through the summary procedure prescribed under the Act (Consumer Protection Act’ 1986); since its adjudication shall involve detailed cross-examination/reexamination of the witnesses etc to surface the truth of the matter in issue and that is otherwise permissible under the Civil Procedure Code, only.

7.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to avail himself of the remedy of adjudication through the civil court of competent jurisdiction as available in law. The parties here shall bear their own expenses of litigation.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                President                                                                                 

ANNOUNCED:                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

October 9, 2015                                                      Member

*MK*