1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her husband had an insurance policy bearing No.74421646 with th Ops commencing from 22.3.2010 for a term of 10 years under which she is the nominee and the OP.2 through its man, Mr. Sudarsan Gupta of Balasore (Mobile No.8467883715) made a phone call to the complainant and her husband stating that the above policy has won a lottery of Rs.18.00 lacs through lucky draw and the Company has suppressed the said fact.  The OP.2 through its different employees advised the complainant and her husband that in lieu of a term deposit of Rs.1, 81,000/-, the lottery benefit will be given to the life assured.  It is submitted that the complainant being lured by the tactical language of OP.2 agreed to take a policy in her name and requested the OP.2 to send proposal form and other papers for her perusal but the OP.2 suggested that all the information are available with them as per previous policy and the complainant is required to send DD amount of Rs.1, 81,000/- in the name of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. along with photo copy of Voter’s Identity Card, PAN Card and a canceled cheque.  When the complainant asked about her signature, the OP.2 stated that her signature will be scanned and put on the proposal form as they are doing the same in all cases.  Accordingly the complainant sent 2 DDs vide No.369271 & 369272 dt.30.12.2015 of Rs.90, 500/- each of Indian Overseas Bank, Jeypore to be drawn at Bhubaneswar to Mr. B.D.Kar, RLIC, Balasore and the Ops have issued Policy No.74421954 commencing from 18.01.2016 but after receipt of bond, the complainant found that the  policy issued in her favour is for 15 years and the premium paying term is 7 years which fact was not disclosed by the OP.2.  When the complainant raised objection before OP.2 regarding issuance of different policy than that of discussed one, the OP.2 advised the complainant to wait till the lottery benefit is received by her and thereafter the policy in question will be converted as per decision of the complainant.  It is also further submitted that the complainant contacted OP.1 within free look period through Toll Free No.180030008181 as well as local branch(OP.3) and all the Ops assured to resolve the issue but did not take any step.  The complainant submitted that she has never signed the proposal form and hence the policy is not accepted by her and her attempt to return the policy within free look period could not be materialised as the Ops did not listen to her grievance.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to take return of the policy and refund Rs.1, 81,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 30.12.2015 and to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation besides Rs.20, 000/- towards cost to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 3 filed counter challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to try over this case as no cause of action arose here and it is contended that as there is no allegation in the complaint petition against the Ops 1 & 3, the case against them is to be dismissed.  It is contended that the complainant has never approached the Ops 1 & 3 during free look period and the OP.2 is not their direct agent to sell their produce and hence for any fraudulent act by OP.2, the Ops 1 & 3 are not liable.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that no person namely Sudarsan Gupta has ever promised for any lottery benefit to the complainant and the OP.2 has no knowledge about the fact.  It is contended that the complainant was explained the terms and conditions of the policy during PLVC conducted by OP.2 and PIVC conducted by the Insurance Co. and being satisfied, the complainant has taken the policy.  Denying the scanned signature of the complainant, the OP.2 contended that the complainant has signed the proposal form and other documents after careful reading of the same.  The OP also contended that Policy bearing No.74421646 of RLIC Ltd. was purchased by the complainant paying the premium of Rs.1, 81,000/- but denied promise of any lottery benefit to the complainant and the policy of the complainant has no link with any other policy.  It is also further contended that the complainant has never approached the OP.2 with any issue of different policy or any other issue  or the OP gave any such assurance to the complainant.  Thus denying any unfair trade practice adopted by them, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant as well as Ops 1 & 3 have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed written argument.  We have perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, Policy No.74421954 commencing from 18.01.2016 for 15 years and premium paying term for 7 years issued by the Ops in favour of the complainant are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that her husband had an insurance policy bearing No.74421646 with the Ops under which the complainant is nominee and OP No.2 through its different employees informed the complainant and her husband that the above policy has won a lottery of Rs.18.00 lacs through a random lucky draw and the LA will get the benefit within 3 months with condition that either the policy holder or any of his family members is to obtain a new policy from Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  On being repeatedly approached by OP.2, the complainant agreed for a term deposit of Rs.1, 81,000/- as advised by the OP.2 and requested the OP.2 to send proposal form and other documents for perusal and signature of the complainant.

6.                     It is the case of the  complainant that the OP.2 suggested her that all the information are available with them as per previous policy schedule and the complainant is required to send DD amount of Rs.1, 81,000/- in favour of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd along with documents like Photocopy of Voter’s Identity Card, PAN card and a canceled cheque.  When the complainant asked about her signature, the OP.2 replied that her signature will be scanned and put on the proposal form as they are doing the same in all cases.  Accordingly, the complainant sent two DDs dt.30.12.2015 for Rs.90, 500/- each of IOB, Jeypore as per advice of OP.2 to Mr. B.D.Kar, RLIC, Balasore and the Ops issued policy No.74421954 which was, according to the complainant, a different policy than that of the discussed one.

7.                     The Ops. 1 & 3 in their counter stated that this case lacks territorial jurisdiction as the complainant has put her signature in the proposal form at Balasore and deposited the DDs with OP.2.  The OP.2 has not uttered a single word regarding the signature of the proposal form by the complainant at Balasore.  It is found from the record that the complainant has sent only DDs and documents from Jeypore to OP.2 and the RLIC has sent the policy bond to th complainant in her address at Jeypore.  The complainant has also requested the OP.3 office at Jeypore for cancellation of policy.  When no evidence is on record that the complainant had been to Balasore to initiate the policy, it can be safely concluded that part of cause of action arose at Jeypore and this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try over this case.

8.                     The complainant says that different employees of OP.2 insisted her to take a new policy otherwise the lottery benefit will be lapsed.  The OP.2 on the other says that the complainant has voluntarily taken the policy which is clear from the Pre Log in Verification (PLVC).  The PLVC details have been mentioned by the OP.2 in its counter.  Through PLVC the OP.2 was informed from the complainant that she has signed the application form, Client Declaration Forum (CDF) and benefit illustration.  The OP.2 has only filed copy of CDF from which it was seen that the signature of the complainant on that form are quite different from the signatures on the other documents on record.  The signature “Kumudini” is available on that form whereas on other documents,  the complainant has signed “Kumudini Devi”.  No copy of proposal form is furnished by any of the Ops for our perusal. To our bare eyes it appears that the signatures on CDF have been made by some one other than the complainant and the alphabets/styles of signatures are totally different.  Hence the contentions of PLVC appear to be false as we found.  The OP.2 further says about PIVC conducted by Ops 1 & 3 but the said Ops did not say anything about PIVC in their counter.  Hence the fact of PIVC is a false one.

9.                     It is further seen that in support of its contentions, the OP.2 has not furnished the copy of proposal form and other documents in order to  know whether the complainant has put her signature on those forms.  On the other hand, the complainant says that when she asked the OP.2 about signatures on different papers, the OP.2 replied that it can be scanned from the previous policy documents and put on the new policy documents.  From the above facts,  it was ascertained that to sell a policy, the Ops can adopt this formula and in our opinion this activity of Ops is unfair.

10.                   The complainant says that she agreed to have a term deposit scheme as she is unable to pay regular premiums but the Ops issued a different policy.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we believe the version of the complainant and the Ops for furtherance of their business has adopted unfair trade practice in view of non tallying of contentions of PLVC with th documents filed by OP.2.  Moreover, the Ops 1 & 3 have not furnished PIVC documents in support of their contention that the complainant is satisfied with the policy proposed.

11.                   Further Ops 1 & 3 say that the complainant has not approached the Ops during free look period if she is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant says that she has lodged complaint with the Ops through Toll Free number supplied by them and she has personally discussed with the OP.3 at Jeypore.  All the Ops assured to look into her grievance but consumed time in a piece meal manner.  The OP.3 has issued acknowledgement for cancellation request in a belated stage which is available on record.  From the whole matter of this case, it was ascertained that the Ops have not dealt with the matter of the complainant in a fair manner.  Therefore, it can be safely hold that the Ops have sold the policy to the complainant fraudulently which can be termed as “mis-sold” and in view of above facts, the complainant is eligible to get back her deposits with interest @ 12% p.a. from 30.12.2015.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this litigation.

12.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to cancel the policy vide Contact No.52501091/Client Id.74421954 and refund Rs.1, 81,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 30.12.2015 and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)