Order-20.

Date-30/04/2015.

Complainant Mrs. Amirun Nessa by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant went to the Axis Bank at Barahampur Branch for opening an account bearing no. 163010100182959 and the Bank Authority took signature in different documents without explaining the contents of documents for opening the account in the said bank and complainant is a Pardanashi Mohemedan Lady and she does not know to read and write in English and anyway can sign in English and the concerned staff of the op Bank collected signatures on the form of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., illegally and fraudulently at the time of opening account in Axis Bank at Baharampur Branch on 07.02.2012 without giving any information to the complainant which she came to learn after one and half year from the statement of the Bank Account.

          On 05.10.2013 the aforesaid fact came to light to the complainant after receiving the premium due letter dated 23.09.2013 sent by Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through ordinary post and then the complainant went to the Axis Bank Baharampur Branch for taking bank statement and after receiving the bank statement the complainant came to learn that at the time of opening the account, the bank authority has taken signatures on the application form of Max Life Insurance by suppression of material fact and deducted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her account of the Baharampur Branch of Axis Bank account on 07.02.2012.

          After knowing the alleged letter sent by Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the complainant rushed to the Baharampur Branch and took the bank statement and asked the bank authority why they have procured signatures on the document of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. without the consent of the complainant but they did not reply and in fact there was some connaivance in between the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., for opening insurance policy illegally and fraudulently and they have deceived the complainant.

          Complainant is a joint account holder with her husband Abdul Jalil in Axis Bank Ltd., CIT Road Branch at 2/1/4, Deb Lane, Kolkata – 700014 and after receiving the statement from the said Bank, complainant got information on 20.10.2013 that the bank authority disbursed a sum of Rs. 50,000.88 paisa to the Max Life Insurance from saving account no. 161010100195966 without intimating the complainant, when the complainant went to the head office of Axis Bank at Shakespear Sarani and filed the complaint against the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. but no fruitful result was received.

          Fact remains that the said account in the Axis Bank bearing A/c No. 161010100195966 is the joint account of the complainant with her husband Abdul Jalil and the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., withdrew the money with the help of authority of Bank and practically the entire conduct was done by Axis Bank staff with connivance with the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and took signatures fraudulently on the application form of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and in fact complainant has no source of income and she had no intention to purchase a policy and she has no capacity to continue the insurance policy per year and most interesting matter is that how the authority of Max Life Insurance Policy came to learn that the complainant maintained an account in Axis Bank CIT Road Branch with her husband.  So, it is clear that with connivance of Axis Bank, Max Life Insurance Co. managed to withdraw the amount and though actually no consent letter was sent for opening the Max Life Insurance and further Max Insurance’s no present staff came to the house of the complainant for the purpose of selling the said policy and the act of the Axis Bank is completely illegal and there was no ground of disbursing of Rs. 50,000.88 paisa to the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and considering all the fact ultimately complainant filed a complaint against the op no.2 at Entally Police Station but police did not take any step and in the above circumstances for deceitful manner of service on the part of the ops and also for deceiving the complainant in such a manner and further for adopting such unfair practice, complainant filed this complaint for returning the entire amount including the litigation cost and the compensation etc.

          On the other hand op nos. 1 to 3 (Axis Bank) by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and fabricated and in fact if there is any dispute regarding the Insurance Policy, it is in between the complainant and the op no.4 and in respect of bank account there is no allegation and op nos. 1 to 3 are wrongly impleaded as party and in fact the role of the op nos. 1 to 3 is only that of a facilitator or Referral Agent and the present op nos. 2 & 3 did not render any sort of insurance related service to the complainant.  So, the present dispute does not come within the definitions of complainant.

          Further it is submitted that the complainant voluntarily opted for an investment scheme which would yield higher returns if kept for a long period and at the same time she was referred the name of op no.4 and the complainant opted for the policy of op no.4, put her signature on the policy form and also ECS Mandate which gave the right to the insurance company to automatically debit the insurance premium from the bank account of the policy holder.  Before the signature, complainant was explained about the terms and conditions of the policy by the Financial Planning Consultant of the op no.4 after which the complainant gave her consent to go ahead with the policy and the complainant being convinced by the plan signed all the necessary documents and as such now the complainant cannot make such grievances and op denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the entire complaint is false on the ground that the complaint should be dismissed as bank cannot be fashioned with the insurance liability.

          But op no.4 by filing written statement submitted that op no.4 being a customer centre organization is ready to settle and thereby offering refund of the entire premium amount by cancelling the policy no. 859629644 and further as regards policy no. 859653305 is concerned, it is submitted that in order to verify the allegations of signature forgery, raised in the present complaint it is prayed that directions may be issued to the complainant to provide bank attested specimen signatures in order to investigate the said allegations of the complainant that has been denied.

          It is further submitted that everything was done by the complainant in the bank but only sum were received by the op and as per proposal form the ECS mode of the policy was opened and premium was deducted and the policy had been issued and complainant received duly filled and signed proposal form and all other allegations are denied and when her policy was opened, then complainant was asked to pay second premium.  So, request was sent for payment of premium and in this regard there is no laches on the part of the op for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          On comparative study of the complaint and written version and further considering the entire argument of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also after assessment and evaluation of materials evidences including the document, it is found that in fact this complainant is a Muslim Pardanashi Lady having her no educational qualification but only she can sign in English.  Another admitted fact is that this lady went to open a bank account in the bank of op nos. 1 to 3 that is Axis Bank, Barahampur Branch (Murshidabad) on 02.07.2012 and it is admitted by the op nos. 1 to 3 that they collected signatures of the complainant.  But nowhere it is stated by op nos. 1 to 3 that as facilitator or referral agent they collected any consent of the complainant in separate from informing the details of insurance policy and truth is that on the date of opening of the said account on 02.07.2012, complainant went to the Axis Bank for open bank opening purpose.  But truth is that complainant opened an account at Axis Bank, Barahampur Branch.

          Anyhow op nos. 1 to 4 have tried to convince that complainant signed all the necessary documents being satisfied about the policy condition.  But the question is whether the consent letter before filing up the application form was taken or not and from the written version of op nos. 1 to 3 the facilitator cum referral agent of op no.4 it is clear that they collected the signatures of the complainant in different papers.  But as per IRDA guidelines it is mandatory for any insurance company to accept any proposal form for opening a policy to handover a consent form in which in the mother tongue of the complainant all information shall be noted and after realization of the same by the complainant with the help of her husband and family members if she signs in the said consent form, then the said consent letter shall be handed over to facilitator cum referral agent and thereafter the form shall be handed over and it shall be filled up by the policy holder and after that it shall be submitted to the facilitator or referral agent and thereafter the insurance company can receive the same and to verify whether she is willing to open the same but in the present case nothing has been done.

          Another factor is that no procedure has been adopted by the op nos. 1 to 3 as referral agent or facilitator of op no.4 for the purpose of taking signature in such papers and in fact no authority can take any signature of any Pardanashi Lady without consent of her husband or father or guardian.  But that has not been done but para-6 of the written version of op nos. 1 to 3 supports that a Pardanashi Muslim Lady’s signature was taken in blank application.  On the particular date of opening the bank account by Axis Bank of Barahampur Branch.  Such an act on the part of the ops is no doubt illegal uncalled for and without any jurisdiction.  But such an illegal act was done by the ops and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 to 3 as facilitator or referral agent of op no.4 acted illegally and without any jurisdiction and managed to procure the signature of Muslim Pardanashi Lady defying all legal process and procedure.  So, we are convinced to hold that subsequent event that is acceptance of policy of op no.4 is completely bad and in fact op no.4 and op nos. 1 to 3 are the two brothers in the same board of directors and management insurance company is a partner of op nos. 1 to 3.  It is true that op nos. 1 to 3 are selling the policy of Max Life Insurance and they are referral agent and facilitator.  So, at the time of opening the account from any customer, they collect the signatures for opening a policy and in such a manner they are deceiving the customers.

          In fact Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has no office at Murshidabad district.  There is no field worker and agent or official consultant and truth is that op no.4’s official consultant is tagged with op nos. 1 to 3 at their different branches and they are acting in such a manner deceiving the customer in so many cases.

          Fact remains that ECS mandate form signature of Amirun Nessa was taken but the entire form was filled up by the bank authority and in fact that ECS mandate was not signed by the complainant knowing fully well about the fact of the papers or the contains of the papers.  Moreover complainant never disclosed that she had her one account of Axis Bank at CIT Road Branch at Kolkata along with her husband.  But it is known to all if any account is opened by any lady and thereafter search is made by the bank authority, it shall be found that there are how many accounts of the said lady in the other Axis Bank and adopting such procedure bank authority op nos. 1 to 3 somehow managed another bank account of complainant along with her husband at CIT Toad and that was noted on the part of the op bank which is completely malafide in nature and in fact for the purpose of selling the product of their sister concern, Max Life Insurance op no.1 adopted such unfair trade practice.

          No doubt complainant never opened any policy with full knowledge and willing to open with her consent.  Whatever it may be from the written version of the op it is found that op no.4 in para-3 has admitted that they are willing to refund the said premium amount by cancelling the policy being Policy No. 859629644.  Another factor is that op no.4 has admitted that there is another policy being No. 859653305 that everything was done by op nos. 1 to 3 and when op no.4 is willing to refund the said amount in that case we find that op nos. 1 to 3 illegally adopted such manipulation to secure the signature of the complainant in blank papers and the process of the entire matter back behind the knowledge of the complainant.

          Another factor is that complainant had not received the original policy document as yet that means that all the policy documents are in the custody of op nos. 1 to 3 who did not supply the same and op no.4 has not stated in the written statement in so many words that policy document was delivered to the complainant and complainant received it and in fact that the original policy document in respect of the policy no. 859629644 and 859653305 were never received by the complainant and it is the practice of the Axis Bank to collect the document directly and thereafter on completion of payment of next premium same is supplied.  In fact complainant only received next premium due slip when she came to learn about the entire mishap and reported to the ops, but ops did not reply or respond.

          In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that the policy no. 859629644 and 859653305 were never opened by the complainant knowing fully well of the same.  But the signatures were collected by the ops giving no chance to the Pardanashi Muslim Lady the complainant and managed to process the two policies and deducted amount by placing that ECS papers and such sort of act on the part of the op is no doubt against the principle of IRDA guidelines and in fact in such a manner the private insurance companies are deceiving the poorer section of people in all over West Bengal and also in India.  In this context, it is to be mentioned that similarly Standard Chartered Bank has adopted some procedure for opening policy of Royal Sundaram their sister concern.  HDFC Bank authority adopted same procedure for opening policy of HDFC Prudential Life Insurance.  But truth is that IRDA guidelines are never followed by those banks.  In this context after handling huge number of insurance related complaint cases, it is found that only the LICI has adopted a moral and social values at the time of selling their policies for which in respect of LICI, complain is very meagre about mis-selling of any policy by the LICI and generally it is not found.  But all allegations are against Reliance, Max Life Insurance, Sun Life Insurance, Royal Sundaram, Cholomandalalam, Dewan Financial Life Insurance etc. and they are in the field tagging with policy selling by any bank and bank is the pioneer agent and facilitator of those private insurance companies because those private insurance companies are existence in India and they are trying to grab the money by adopting such unfair practice.  But anyhow the total business policy of private insurance companies are not properly assessed by the Fora at all level and truth is that the market policy of the private insurance company should be controlled otherwise 80 percent of the insurance policy holder shall have to starve at the hands of private insurance companies.

          There is no control at all about their marketing policy but it is major opinion and findings of nobel Laureato John Tirello and that bank and insurance company should be handled over with tough hands by the Government and consumer association otherwise they shall have to deceive the people at large and practically the poorer section people shall be deceived by them in all cases because there is a contract and parties cannot go beyond the contract and when any case is filed, they are producing the agreement with signature of the party and when the Forum is found very technical unable to realise the tactical business policy if there is business tactics and it should be controlled for which the C.P. Act was enacted but not for only simply passing judgement without considering the market economy, market policy, the social application of the corporate concern, the traders etc.  The whole factor shall be considered with a view to save the consumers but not for passing a judgement in white papers.

          Object of the C.P. Act is to control the immoral business tacties in market policy of the companies.  But fact remains for that huge study is required and otherwise the judgement shall be nothing but a paper judgement and if technicalities are always taken into account, then invariably consumer shall be throttled to death due to adoption of technical factors by the Forum.  Views of the Forum must be very social and with positive attitude for protecting the interest of this Consumer otherwise C.P. Act shall be like the act MRTP Act and Prevention of Corruption Act etc.  It is not the view of this Forum but many world renowned authors have confirmed that 1 percent of the total population of India is not safe even after enactment of CP Act even after establishment of three tires Forum that means Forum has failed to control the immoral trade practice by different companies and failed to save the consumers. Stern steps should be taken by the Forum otherwise this type of insurance company and bank shall have to squeeze money from the poor people by taking such unfair trade practice.

          In the light of the above observation and considering the entire material we are convinced to hold that op no.4 is bound to refund the entire amount of this policy treating it as cancelled.  Strongly we are observing that the act of the op nos. 1 to 3 are no doubt unfair trade practice in nature so they cannot be loosely handled.  If in future such an incident is happened in that case penal action should be taken against those ops.  But fact remains that op nos. 1 to 4 have practically harassed the complainant and for their harassment complainant has been harassed further by the op no.4.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

          Op no.4 is hereby directed to refund the entire premium amount of policy being No. 859629644 and 859653305 treating both the policy as cancelled and to handover that amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and if it is not paid within one month in that case op no.4 shall have to pay penal interest  at the rate Rs. 3,000/- per month and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum’s Account.  Op nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to cancel the ECS statement against banking account of the complainant which has been produced by the op nos. 1 to 3 to show that complainant opened the ECS system but same was prepared by the op nos. 1 to 3.  So, it shall be cancelled at once and report this Forum.  For adopting unfair trade practice by the op nos. 1 to 4 shall have to pay penal damages of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid before this Forum and it is imposed for the purpose of checking unfair trade practice business followed by op nos. 1 to 3.

          Ops are directed to comply the order within the stipulated time and failing which penal action shall be started against them for which they shall be further imposed penalty and fine.