Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/208/2023

SAROJ GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ VASHISHTHA

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	208/2023
Date of Institution	:	09.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.07.2023

 

                                       

                       

 

Saroj Goel aged about 78 years (Aadhar No.2865 0137 3362) w/o Sh.Vijay Gopal Goel, r/o H.No.1155, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]     Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.123-124, 3^rd Floor, Above Reliance Jewells, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

2]     Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (IRDA Regd. No.121) Registered Office Block 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Centre, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400710 (India) through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties.  

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Manoj Vaishisht, Counsel of complainant Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel of OPs.

      

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.         By this common order, we propose to dispose of three (3) connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved. The particulars of the complaints and the details of the amount deposited by the complainant(s) in the policies of the OPs is as under:-

1	2	3	4	5
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Policy No.	Amount (In Rs.)
	208/2023	Saroj Goel	53439726	2,50,000/- (Ann.C-3)
	209/2023	Saroj Goel	53577128	2,50,000/- (Ann.C-3)
	210/2023	Saroj Goel	53439131	2,50,000/- (Ann.C-3)

2.         The facts are gathered from C.C.No.208/2023- Saroj Goel Vs. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another. 
3.         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, pleading that the complainant and her husband were approached by Mr.Puneet and his wife Alka by addressing themselves to be the business partners of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and having authorization of the Company being business partners and proposed that Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited floated certain plans for the elderly and they were induced to purchase Reliance Fixed Saving Plan, which is virtually a Savings Plan and the complainant and her husband was asked to put the savings in the policy for three years and after three years, the complainant and her husband was to get the maturity amount just as the money is deposited in the Bank. The complainant agreed to take the Policy No.53439726 with yearly premium of Rs.2,50,000/- for a period of three years, with date of commencement as 19.03.2019 and on its maturity, the maturity amount of Rs.8,80,000/-  is to be paid. The complainant was not delivered the policy and so the complainant requested Sh.Puneet Agarwal to provide the document as assured confirming about the status of policies, their premium, payment term, maturity date and maturity amount.  Accordingly, the agent of the OPs got issued a status of all the policies issued in favour of the complainant and her husband  with respective details . The money so deposited in the said plan was for the purpose that the same be used in the marriage of their grandchildren. Later on, it came to the knowledge that the policy was issued with a term of 15 years instead of 3 years.   It has been averred that the husband of the complainant never taken any of the policy for a term of 15 years reason being it is in their due knowledge that 15 years is long term for a person having age of about 80 years to plan his or her life and the complainant is not in the hope that either she or her husband shall see the world for 15 years and/or could be able to pay the premium of the policy regularly.   Since the polices were not delivered within the stipulated period and the same were delivered to them by hand, the complainant could not be able to avail the benefit of free look period. The complainant got served a legal notice (Annexure C-5) upon the OPs requiring them to refund the deposited amount but to no effect. The OPs exchanged few communications with the husband of the complainant (Annexure C-7 (Colly.).  It has further been averred that in the policy itself, the OPs have mentioned under the head of “Fixed Regular Additions” that for the 1^st year of policy, the benefit shall be 8% of the annualized premium, for the 2^nd policy year, it shall be 9% and for 3^rd year onwards it shall be 10%. Thus, the complainant has suffered irreparable loss and grave injustice on account of the act and conduct of the OPs which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also to grave violation of the consumer rights. Hence, the OPs are liable for its act under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Lastly, the complainant prayed that the OPs be directed to release the deposited amount along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.
4.         After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared through their counsel and filed written version denying all the allegations made against them in the complaint. The OPs took preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed only to get the undue benefits.  Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000)1 SCC 66 and V. Chandrasekaran &Anr. Vs. The Administrative Officer & Others, 2013(1) CCC 75.  It has been stated that based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the LA, the OPs issued the policy(s) in question to the LA. The OPs alleged that the complaint has been filed merely to harass the OPs and to gain undue advantage and unjustified money and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves  to be dismissed with costs.
5.         The complainant filed replication to the written version filed by the OPs denying all the contents of the written version and again pressed upon the contents of the complaint. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the complaint be allowed as per the prayer made in the complaint.
6.         The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
7.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
8.         The complainant has specifically mentioned in the complaint that the policy was mis-sold to her by giving false assurances/promises that the amount is as safe as it is kept in the bank promising her to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- for a period of three years and to get maturity value of Rs.8,80,000 after period of three years. Being misled by OPs, the complainant who is a senior citizen acted upon assurance of the OPs. Moreover, the policy was not delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period and the same was delivered by hand, so that the complainant could not be able to benefit of free look period, which also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the OPs mis-sold the policy having premium amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which is to be paid for the next 10 years by an old lady till she attains the age of 84 years. In order to convince the complainant, the agents of the OPs assured the complainant that she will get majority benefits after three years.
9.         The consumers rights as enshrined in Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the consumers has right to be informed about the quality, potency, purity, standard and price of the goods, products or services as the case may be so as to protect him from unfair trade practice.
10.         Definition of ‘unfair trade practice’ as defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 states as under:

(47) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:—

(i)             making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which—

(a) to (c)    xxxxxx

(d)            represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;

                In the present case, Mr. Puneet Agarwal and       his wife, Alka not only mis-sold the policy to the complainant by misrepresentation of its benefits which such policy does not have but also given in writing to the complainant about the benefits which policy does not     have.  So it is a clear-cut case of unfair trade practice conducted by the representative of the OPs to make a wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the OPs. hence, the OPs are liable to refund the amount along with interest and compensation.

11.         In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich”.

                It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The principle of law settled in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

                The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, reported as III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) observed as under:-

“To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, 'to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers'. Use of the word 'protection' furnishes key to the minds of makers of the act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.”

 

12.         Similar facts have been pleaded in another connected complaints and similar evidence has been led in them.  Therefore, in all the consumer complaints, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.
13.         Resultantly, we partly allow all the consumer complaint of the complainants. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to:-

1.         To refund the entire deposited amount(s) to the complainant, as mentioned in the table above (Para No.1) i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs & Fifty Thousand only), with interest @9% from the respective dates of deposit till its payment in each complaint.
2.         To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment in each case.
3.         To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation in each complaint.

14.         This order be complied with by the OP(s), within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
15.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
16.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 07/07/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER