DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.329/2008
Ms. Ekta Sagar
R/o E-2172 Palam Vihar
Gurgaon-122017 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Standard Chartered Bank
Malcha Marg, Chanakaya Puri
New Delhi
2. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company
GE Plaza, Airport Road
Yerawada, Pune-411006 …...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : May 2008
Date of Order : 19.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that as her parents had a joint saving bank account in the OP No.1 bank and were satisfied customers of OP No.1, her parents told Mr. Gaurav Singh of customer care of OP No.1 that they had a hard earned money of Rs.1 lac only in spare and wanted to invest the same for safe investment. Mr. Gaurav Singh suggested the following two schemes for investment:
“(a) Derryl Linch midcap mutual fund for Rs.50,000/-
(b) Equity linked insurance scheme for Rs.50,000/- with following stipulations:-
- One time single payment of Rs.50,000/-.
- Lock in period of three years.
- Incentive in the form of insurance of Rs.1.25 lacs.
When her father asked for the proposal form for filling, Mr. Gaurav Singh said that filling the form was just a formality which he would do as per the details already discussed. Since she (complainant) was not present there at that time, he told her parents that he would get the proposal form signed by her in her clinic. Later on, when Mr. Gaurav came to her clinic, she was busy with her patients but however she signed the form in full faith that everything will be in order as discussed. Paras 6, 7, 10 & 11 of the complaint read as under: -
“6. The policy papers were received by the staff of my clinic, where it remained unattended for quite some time. This happened because Mr. Gaurav had wrongly written clinic address in the space provided for residential address in the proposal form (attached as annex 1). Consequently by the time my father got to read the policy letter it was well beyond the grace period of 15 days given in Bajaj Allianz letter no.BZBJ/574 dated: 7-11-2006 (attached as annexure2) for lodging any complaint/disagreement with the clauses of policy no.0029009613. Had Mr. Gaurav Singh given the correct residential address in the proposal form, the present situation would not have arisen because my father would have read the policy letter in time to inform Bajaj Allianz about the complaint/ disagreement with certain clauses of the policy within the grace period.
7. On perusal of the policy, my father found that some of the clauses filled in the proposal form either by Mr.Gaurav Singh of SCB or by Mr Kapil Jain of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company had been wrongly filled, in contravention to Para 2(b)(I) above, most notable being that in serial 5 of the proposal form,(copy attached as annex-I), in the column "premium frequency" instead of ticking single premium box, annual premium box had been ticked by them without my consent, according to which, I was further required to pay additional annual premiums of Rs. 50,000/ each in the next four years for which my father had never planned because I had opted for "single premium" policy only.
10. It may be pertinent to note that Mr.Gaurav Singh of SCB was specifically told 
by my father that he had only Rs.l lac to spare for investments to augment his income from monthly pension. Mr.Gaurav Singh suggested one time investment of Rs 50,0001 in equity linked insurance scheme and the remaining amount for investment in equity linked mutual funds. With this financial constraint how could Mr.Gaurav Singh drag me in a scheme involving annual premium of Rs.50,000/- every year for the next four years?
11. As mentioned in Para 4 and 5 above, Mr Gaurav submitted the application form to the insurance company after obtaining my signatures on the proposal form in my clinic. Since I was busy with my patients, I could not read the proposal form, nor I insisted upon it due to my father's implicit faith in the bank and its staff.”
It is pleaded that fraud and unfair trade practice was followed by the two executives of the OP No.1 in filling in the proposal form. None of the entries made in the proposal form were made by her nor did they follow the guidelines for filling up the form. Para 13 of the complaint reads as under:-
“In his letter to Bajaj AIlianz Insurance Company, my father brought to their notice that he is a defence services pensioner, had fought three wars in the service of the nation and deserved a better dell from them. It is not possible for him, Army pension being his major source or for me since I am a student, to pay Rs.50,000/- annually for the next four years for the policy wrongfully thrust upon me, but there has been no response from them. Perhaps rendering service for the defence of the nation has no value for them.”
Hence it is prayed that the OPs be directed to issue another policy with single premium of Rs.50,000/- with retrospective effect in lieu of wrong policy issued to her or in the alternative OPs be directed to refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% and to give compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment which she has undergone in the last 18 months and Rs.10,000/- towards the expenses of the case.
In the reply OP No.1 has inter-alia stated as under:-
“2. The facts as alleged in the complaint are false, frivolous and a concocted story. The true facts are that the father of the complainant was interested in taking an insurance policy and the OP 1 merely referred him to the OP 2. The insurance policy was taken by the Complainant from OP 2 and there was no interference of OP 1 in the transaction between OP 2 and the complainant. Moreover the proposal form has been signed by the complainant herself and now such a hue and cry on the part of the complainant is unwarranted and uncalled for and has been made just to hoodwink this Hon'ble Court. Without prejudice it is submitted that there was no deficiency in service by OP 1 and the OP 1 cannot be fastened with any liability for the acts of commission or omission of the other opposite parties and complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable especially against OP1 and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6-7 That the contents of the paras under reply are wrong and denied to the knowledge of answering OP. The para under Preliminary Objections may be read as reply to this para as well. It is submitted that policy was undertaken by the complainant with OP No.2 and OP 1 had no role to play except to refer the complainant to OP 2. It is submitted that on receipt and acceptance of the duly filled proposal form; the insurance company forward the insurance policy documents which contains all the terms and conditions of the policy. In case the insured does not agree to any terms and conditions mentioned in the policy documents, he should have approached the insurance company during the free look period as described in the policy documents.”
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In its reply, the OP No.2 has stated as under:-
“C. …it was already told to the complainant that the policy was a ‘SILVER REGULAR PREMIUM’ IN EQUITY GROWTH FUND, which meant that only a portion of the amount from the premium paid by the complainant would be used to buy units issued by the OP no.2.
D. … it is admitted in paragraph no 6 of the complaint that the OP No.2 has provided the policy and all other relevant documents. So there is no justification as to why the complainant had not availed the benefits of clause 14 i.e. free looking period of the policy document.
E. That all the terms and conditions of present policy titled as ‘SILVER REGULAR PREMIUM’ IN EQUITY FUND’, which is purchased by the complainant is regulated by the guidelines fixed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.”
It is stated that since the complainant did not avail the benefits of clause 14 of the policy document within a period of 15 days, hence no negligence is proved on the part of OP No.2.
In the rejoinders the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
The father of the complainant who is her AR has filed his affidavit in evidence.
No affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of OP No.1.
Affidavit of Sh. Deepak Sagar, Authorized Signatory has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2.
We have heard oral arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the record.
In the Proposal Form for Life Insurance copy of which is Ex. CW-1/1 the complainant has given her residential address as P-11, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and her employer’s name as Care & Care Dental Centre, New Delhi. The policy papers might have been provided to her at her clinic or at her residence but it is not going to make any difference so far as the acceptance and non-acceptance of the terms and conditions governing the policy in question are concerned. Ex. CW-1/2 is the copy of letter dated 07.11.06 written by the OP No.2 to the complainant at her residential address at P-11, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi whereby the policy in question was sent to her and it was stipulated that the OP No.2 had offered her 15 days free look period commencing from the date of receipt of the policy documents and during this period the complainant had the option to peruse the terms and conditions and return the policy if she did not agree to any terms and conditions, stating the reason for her objections. She was entitled to a free look refund as per the policy conditions as stated in the policy document. However, the case of the complainant is that the policy documents were provided to her staff at her clinic and, therefore, she could not go through the same and by the time her father got to read the policy letter it was well beyond the grace period of 15 days; that had Mr. Gaurav Singh given the correct residential address in the proposal form, the present situation would not have arisen because her father would have read the policy letter in time to inform the OP No.2 about the complaint/disagreement with certain clauses of the policy within the grace period. The complainant herself is a doctor (perhaps a dental surgeon/dentists). Her father is a retired Colonel. They are not uneducated people nor can be presumed that they were not aware with the provisions of the law. It stands proved on the record that the policy papers were infact signed by the complainant under no duress or threat or misrepresentation. As soon as she signed the proposal form and the policy papers in original were supplied to her and she did not look the free look period clause within the stipulated period of 15 days she must be presumed to have gone through the contents of the proposal form and the policy papers.
In the complaint the date on which the father of the complainant had read the policy papers has not been mentioned. It is for the first time in his affidavit that the father of the complainant has stated that he got hold of the policy papers and the letter dated 07.11.06 issued by OP No.2 on 24.12.16. Can it be believed that the policy papers by any stretch of imagination remained lying unattended with the complainant or for that purpose with her father who had been dealing with the OPs on her behalf for a period of more than 1 and half months. Certainly not. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no orders as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.05.2017.
