Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The present Appeal stems out of the Order dated 20-10-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 438/2015 whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP thereof has preferred this Appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that on being persuaded by an employee of the OP Bank, she put her signature on a Form and said official filled up the said form on her behalf.  Although the said employee of the OP Bank promised that the FD certificate would be couriered to her residence from Mumbai, after waiting for a considerable time, when she did not receive any FD Certificate, she lodged a complaint with the OP Bank on 14-02-2015.  Thereafter, two employees visited her residence with a print out.  As the same did not contain any maturity amount, so she refused to accept it.  On being informed that the same was not a fixed deposit, she asked the OP to return the entire deposited sum, but in vain.  Hence, the case.

Case of the OP, on the other hand, is that the Complainant on her own volition, after understanding the nitty-gritty of the concerned policy, opted for it and put her signature on the prescribed form.  Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

The issue at stake is basically alleged misspelling of Insurance/Mutual Fund product by the Appellant to the Respondent.

It is claimed by the Appellant that after understanding the terms and conditions of the Policy in question, the Respondent willingly opted for the same.  On the other hand, it is stated by the Respondent that she was totally misguided by the official of the Appellant, who alluring her of high return, got her signature on the prescribed form and after a long period of time, when she got wind of such manipulation, she immediately asked the Appellant to refund her money.

The allegation of misspelling of Insurance/Mutual Fund Products is not new.  In fact, the situation turned so acute that the IRDA had to step in and design due Regulations to curb such malpractice. In terms of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, a policyholder is accorded 15 days time from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and in case of any dissatisfaction, the policyholder is at liberty to seek refund of the premium amount.

In this case, no such proof is forthcoming before us that the Respondent applied for refund of the deposited money beyond the free-look period.  In fact, the very allegation of the Respondent is that she has not received the policy document as yet.  Accordingly, there should not have been any hindrance in the way of arranging refund of deposited sum to the Respondent. 

It is claimed by the Appellant that Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd. is a necessary party to the case as the money stood invested with the said company and accordingly, if the Respondent indeed deserves refund of the deposited sum, the onus of refunding the same lies with the said company.

On going through the case record, save and except photocopy of one application form, I do not come across a solitary piece of document to show that the money has been received by Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd.  True, the photocopy of passbook denotes that on 27-01-2015, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- got transferred to “SETU/STP……”.  However, form such endorsement on the passbook, hardly any link can be established in between “SETU/STP….” and “Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd”. 

That apart, on due consideration of the preponderance of probabilities, the allegation of the Respondent cannot be brushed aside as a concocted story, A person is always liable for his/her own torts, so an agent who commits a tort is liable. In my considered opinion, since the mess has been created by the Appellant itself, the entire liability of refunding the deposited sum to the Respondent has to be borne by the Appellant only. 

Seen against this prism, the impugned Order cannot be faulted with in any manner and as such, I refrain from interfering with the same. 

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/1167/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to costs.