Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal has been filed by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Order dated 29-01-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in C.C. No. 256/2014.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that in the month of February, 2013, agents/Marketing Executives of the OP Nos. 3 & 4 made contact with him over phone and proposed him to invest in “short time one time Investment” schemes of the OP No. 1&2  repayable after 90 days with 14% cumulative interest.  Attracted by such proposal, the Complainant issued two cheques worth Rs. 50,000/- each in favour of the OP Insurance Company.  However, subsequently on receipt of the policy certificates, he discovered that tenure of the said policies were actually 10 years.  Taken aback, the Complainant immediately took up the matter with the OP Nos. 3&4 who promised to rectify the defects and issue fresh policies.  On 06-06-2013, men of the OP Nos. 3&4 visited his house and collected the two policies in original and promised to deliver the rectified policies within a week time.  Allegedly, despite such promise, the OP Nos. 3&4 neither returned the old policies nor delivered the rectified policies.  Bewildered, the Complainant lodged a written complaint with the OP No. 1 on 10-08-2013.  However, in reply, the OP No. 2 expressed its inability to accommodate the request of the Complainant on the ground that such request was not made within the free-look period.  Hence, the case.

OP Nos. 1&2 by filing a W.V. stated that on receipt of two duly filled up proposal forms along with relevant documents and premium cheques, they issued the policies and sent it by post on 21-02-2013 and 26-02-2013.  After a lapse of more than 6 months on 10-08-2013 they received a complaint from the Complainant alleging mis-sale of policies.  Vide such letter, the Complainant also asked for refund of the deposited sum.  However, as such request was made beyond the free look period as prescribed by the Insurance Regulator, IRDA, they expressed their inability to accede to the request of the Complainant.

Decision with reasons

The present dispute revolves over alleged misspelling of insurance policies by the Appellants through Respondent Nos. 2&3.  It is alleged that agents of the Insurance Company, alluring the Respondent No. 1 of high return against one time deposit of money for a short period of time, convinced him to issue two cheques of Rs. 50,000/-.  On receipt of the policy documents, however, the Respondent No. 1 realized his folly of reposing his blind faith about the sincerity of purpose of the Respondent Nos. 2&3, the agents of the Appellant Insurance Company.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Appellants that they issued policy documents in favour of the Respondent No. 1 after receiving requisite of premium cheques and duly filled up proposal forms from him.  Further, if the Respondent No. 1 had any grievance in respect of the said policies, he could seek refund of money within a fortnight of receipt of the policy documents those were sent by post.  Therefore, as the Respondent No. 1 did not make cancellation request within the free-look period as mandated by the IRDA, they had no obligation to refund the money to the Respondent No. 1.  Moreover, if the Respondent Nos. 2&3 indeed made any misdeed, the Respondent No. 1 was free to initiate appropriate action against the agents concerned.  Uner any circumstances Peter cannot be robbed to pay Paul.  Respondent Nos. 2&3 denied all the allegations of the Respondent No. 1.

In view of such allegations and denial thereof by the respective parties concerned, let us see whether there is any tinge of truth into the allegation of the Respondent No. 1.

In reply to the questionnaire put  forth by the Appellants, the Respondent No. 1 in his reply to the said questionnaire stated under affidavit that the policy documents were delivered to him after one month from the date of issuance of the same.  Be it mentioned here that although the Appellants claimed to have sent the policy documents through courier on 21-02-2013 and 26-02-2013, they have not filed any Proof of Delivery (PoD) to nullify the contention of the Respondent No. 1 in this regard.

Be that as it may, it is stated by the Respondent No. 1 in his petition of complaint that as soon as he detected the anomalies, he took up the matter with the Respondent Nos. 2&3 over phone, who then promised to visit his residence soon.  However, they actually visited his residence on 06-06-2013 and collected the original policy documents from him with a promise to deliver rectified policy documents within a week.  Allegedly, the Respondent Nos. 2&3 have not returned the same till date.  In order to justy the belated refund claim, it is claimed that a considerable time got wasted in pursuing the matter with the concerned agents. 

It appears that the Respondent No. 1 obtained duplicate copy of policy documents from the Appellants on payment of requisite fees on 17-02-2014.  While a dispute cropped up in respect of the insurance policies concerned on receipt of policy documents and a formal complaint for cancellation of policies/refund of money was made on 10-08-2013, unless the original policy documents were taken by the Respondent Nos. 2&3, as alleged, it was only natural that the Respondent No. 1 would keep the same in his safe custody till a logical conclusion was reached at in that respect.  That apart, we also notice that in his complaint letter to the Appellant No. Appellant No. 1 the Respondent No. 1 disclosed the fact that the Respondent Nos. 2&3 took the original policies from him in the guise of rectifying the same.  Thus, in view of such emerging facts, we see no reason to suspect the bona fide of allegation as made by the Respondent No. 1 that the original policy documents were taken by the Respondent No. 2&3.  The one and only logical inference that one can possibly derived at out of it is that the Respondent No. 1 was misguided by the Respondent Nos. 2&3 – after all, if there was indeed no iota of truth into the allegation of the Respondent No. 1, it would certainly not required the Respondent No. 1 to handover the original policy documents to rectify the anomalies.  Accordingly, on a thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we derive at the conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 was indeed fooled by the Respondent Nos. 2&3.  The settled position of law being that for every act of omission and commission on the part of agents, the principal should be held vicariously liable, we deem it fit and proper to uphold the impugned order albeit with a minor modification as under.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/301/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest.  The Appellants are absolved of the liability of payment of penal damage @ Rs. 100/- per day.  Rest of the impugned order shall remain intact. The Appellants are directed to comply with the modified order within 45 days hence.