ORDER
13.10.2023
MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
- A complaint filed by Sh. Rampal Singh (hereinafter referred to as complainant) seeking the direction for refund of the amount by OP along with suitable litigation cost and appropriate amount of compensation for pain and mental agony suffered.
- In brief facts of the present case are that one Mr. Anand Shrivastava having Ph No. 84480440116 approached the complainant for Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the policy fraud occurred with the complainant under the pretext of getting the complainant’s amount recovered.
- Mr. Anand Shrivastava asked the complainant to open an account with him so that the money recovered would be credited in the account and in the name of account opening he charges Rs. 99,000/- from the complainant. Since the complainant does not have huge amount of Rs. 99,000/- for opening the account he borrowed the money from his relative and transferred the amount to Mr. Anand Shrivastava in order to recover his earlier amount.
- It is alleged by the complainant that instead of opening the account, Mr. Anand shrivastava sent him the policy documents by courier bearing policy no. 53603406 in the name of Reliance Nippon Life’s Guaranteed Money Back. The complainant shocked after received the policy and at this juncture came to know that he was once again cheated as his borrowed money has been utilized for buying a policy. The complainant tried to contact Mr. Anand Shrivastava several time to enquire about the policy in question, but he refused to meet. Having no other option the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP but of no use.
- The complainant also approached to the office of Insurance ombudsman vide complaint reference no. DEL-L-036-2021-0200 but the complaint was rejected by the Ld. Ombudsman. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP and the adjudicating system of the OP complainant approached this Commission for redresssal of his grievance.
- Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP despite service none appeared on behalf of OP as such OP is ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 21.02.2022.
- Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.
- We have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. M.K. Gill and have perused the record.
- Complainant has placed on record the copy of the ombudsman order, copy of email communication between the parties, copy of the complaint lodged with the customer support manager as well as the insurance ombudsman. He has also placed on record copy of the insurance policy as well as first premium receipt in support of his contention.
- The complainant has aggrieved and alleged that necessary action be taken against the OP for policy fraud and cheating occurred with the complainant under the pretext of getting the complainant’s amount recovered.
- In these circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the law and in the latest judgment The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. VS R.Chandramohan, Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 held as under:
The counsel for the appellants has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Ravneet Singh Bagga (supra) as under:
“5. Section 2(i)(o) defines “service” to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Section 2(i)(g) defines “deficiency” to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
“6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the
absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances during the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service”.
- It is pertinent to mention here that now applying the principle of law discussed hereinabove the present case at the outset it is essential to reproduce the subject of the complaint filed by the complainant.
In brief facts of the present case are that one Mr. Anand Shrivastava having Ph No. 84480440116 approached the complainant for Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the policy fraud occurred with the complainant under the pretext of getting the complainant’s amount recovered.
Mr. Anand Shrivastava asked the complainant to open an account with him so that the money recovered would be credited in the account and in the name of account opening he charges Rs. 99,000/- from the complainant. Since the complainant does not have huge amount of Rs. 99,000/- for opening the account he borrowed the money from his relative and transferred the amount to Mr. Anand Shrivastava in order to recover his earlier amount.
It is alleged by the complainant that instead of opening the account, Mr. Anand shrivastava sent him the policy documents by courier bearing policy no. 53603406 in the name of Reliance Nippon Life’s Guaranteed Money Back. The complainant shocked after received the policy and at this juncture came to know that he was once again cheated as his borrowed money has been utilized for buying a policy. The complainant tried to contact Mr. Anand Shrivastava several time to enquire about the policy in question, but he refused to meet. Having no other option the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP but of no use.
- The present complaint involves the facts which requires adjudication of criminality like fraud and cheating which could not be decided by the Commission under the C.P Act 2019. The law is well settled that the proceeding before the commission being summary in nature cannot decide the criminal liabilities and offences such like fraud or cheating.
- On the basis of above observation and discussion, the present complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.
Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Pronounced on 13.10.2023
SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA
PRESIDENT MEMBER
