Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the services extended primarily by the opposite party 2 as mentioned above viz. ‘The Manager of Max Life Insurance’ (hereinafter referred to as OP 2) in the matter of paying back the appropriate amount against discontinuation of a Life Insurance Policy, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
However the Complainant has involved OP 1 and OP 3 in the entire matter as in one way or the other these two OPs had considerable role in the issue.
After trimming the unnecessary details incorporated in the complaint petition, the facts of the case as depicted in the complaint petition stand as follows.
Initially a policy bearing no.406348292 was incepted in the name of OP 1 i.e. Sri Soumya Kanti Das by OP 2 and in the process, OP 3 i.e. Axis Bank, Chinsurah Branch appears to have acted as a referral agent. OP 1 in the first instance is reported to have paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as a premium against the policy.
However OP 1 could not continue the policy because of some ‘crisis’ and did not pay any further amount against annual premium.
At this juncture, OP 1approached to the Complainant and asked him to be the assignee of the policy. Reportedly out of good relation with OP 1 and to square up certain personal financial equation the Complainant agreed to the proposal and finally the policy is claimed to have been assigned in favour of the Complainant on 18.05.18.
The Complainant claims to have paid Rs.3,00,000/- towards further premium by a cheque. But the Complainant admits to have stopped making any further payment towards premium due to certain personal reasons and on 11.01.21 passed necessary instruction to Axis Bank Chinsurah Branch to stop any further payment.
Subsequently the Complainant asked OP 2 to pay back Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. the total amount paid towards premium by OP 1 and the Complainant himself, with applicable interest.
However on enquiry the Complainant came to know that OP 2 already paid the amount with interest to OP 1.
In reply to the legal notice dtd.11.06.2022 sent by the Complainant to the OP 2 a brief note is reported to have been sent by the OP 2 stating that an amount of Rs.7,41,127.18 was paid to OP 1 through NEFT (UTR No, HSBCN22040562400).
At this point, the Complainant raises the question with utter astonishment that how the amount was paid to OP 1 when the policy was assigned to him.
The Complainant points out that cause of action arose on 18.05.2018 and there was continued cause of action.
Considering the treatment extended to him by the OPs as unfair trade practice, the complainant in his petition prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay back the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency of service, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.50,000/-towards litigation cost.
Evidence on affidavit and Brief Notes of argument submitted by the Complainant are almost replicas of the Complaint petition.
The Complainant along with the Complaint petition has submitted copies of the purported communication of OP 2 showing assignment of the policy in favour of the Complainant, one page policy document showing OP 1 as policy holder, three pages document covering key features and FAQ related to the policy, a purported ‘cheque stop payment form’, legal notice sent to OP 2, corresponding reply of OP 2 and messages sent by OP 2.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
The complainant and the opposite party no.1and 3 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal of the instant case. However as none of the opposite parties appeared before this Commission in spite of proper service of notice and paper publication also, the case runs ex parte against all the opposite parties. .
.Decision with Reasons:
Materials on records viz. complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument and connected documents submitted by the Complainant are perused. Now, so far as assignment or transfer of a Life Insurance Policy is concerned, it may be made by simply making an endorsement to that effect in the policy document or by assignment deed. An assignment should be signed by the assigner or his duly authorized agent specifically stating the fact of transfer or assignment and attested by at least one witness. The assignment of an insurance policy can be made in two ways i.e. either by Absolute assignment or by Conditional assignment. However in the instant case it is not clear how the assignment was materialized and what type of assignment it was. No corroborating document in this regard viz. endorsed copy of the policy or the copy of the assignment deed is produced.
The Complainant claims to have paid Rs.3,00,000/- towards premium after the assignment was done on 18.05.18 but no money receipt in this regard has been filed. It is not even mentioned that on which date and in what mode the payment was done.
Besides, the credibility of the brief hand written note, bereft of any authentication claimed to be of OP 2, stating that certain amount of money was transferred to OP 1 through NEFT is grossly questionable.
In view of the above the Commission is of the opinion that the entire petition ab- initio suffers from gross inconsistencies and insufficient documentation. The Complainant’s statements made in the petition are self contradictory and lack transparency.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.136/2022 be and the same is dismissed ex parte.
However there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
