Lt.Col. Puneet Kumar, complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,99,830/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical pain, strain and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a Serving Army Officer presently holding the rank of Ltd.Col in the Indian Army. Both the opposite parties are associated with each other and are close business allies. He is consumer of the HDFC Bank since seven years and the opposite party no.2 for the last three years and is having Saving Bank Account No.05261000106031. He was maintaining a healthy account balance in his Saving Bank account. The opposite party no.2 approached him and asked him time and again to invest Rs.5,00,000/- in a one time premium insurance plan. He agreed to invest Rs.5,00,000/- and the opposite parties obtained his signature on so many documents. In the month of October 2011, he received HDFC Saving Insurance Policy which had commenced from 11 June 2011. After receiving the policy, he was surprised that he received six more policies one after the other, over a period of two and half months. He approached the opposite party no.2 regarding receiving so many policies, whereas he had agreed to invest only Rs.5,00,000/- in a onetime premium payment insurance plan. He approached the Bank again and came to know that at the time of getting the policy bearing no.14434717 dated 11 June 2011 the opposite parties had obtained his signatures on auto debit/standing instructions form. In addition to this, he also came to know about the existence of another insurance policy No.14507112 in his name that was started on 4th July 2011. Instead of one, policy eight insurance policies were made in his name. His signatures on the auto debit mandate form were obtained in routine. The opposite parties invested approximately Rs.9,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- from his Saving Banks. He requested the opposite parties to cancel all the policies as couple of time but the opposite parties refused to cancel the policies. In addition the policy documents for policy no.14507112 have not been received by him till date. He is a disturbed and feels cheated after the incident as the authorized executives of the company are bound to provide accurate and factual information to the customer/beneficiary. Hence, it is clear case of unfair trade practices and deficiencies in the service provided by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed the written reply through its counsel by taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant himself purchased the eight policies with the intention of saving and to get maximum insurance cover. The documents i.e. illustrations, most important documents, mandate for direct debit alongwith the declarations signed by the complainant so that he was well aware about the term of the policies, premium payable by him and insurance cover being given to him under different policies. It is well settled law that when once a person signs a document, it is presumed that he is aware of the contents thereof. Since the opposite party received complete filled up proposal forms alongwith premium amount, therefore, the opposite party was bound to issue the policies. However, in each of the policy a free look period was provided to the complainant within which period he could have returned the policies by stating the reasons thereof. His act of not returning the policies signified his intention to accept the terms and conditions of the policies as mentioned therein. The complainant also signed the auto debit standing instruction form in each of the policies, therefore, his allegation that in three policies i.e. policy no.14434717, 14550347 & 14606910 the second premium was debited without authorization is absolutely wrong and denied. The complainant for the first time has mentioned in the present complaint that he has not received the aforesaid policy. Had he not received the policy? Within a reasonable time he could have very easily approached the opposite party for the same, he was not expected to keep mum for almost three years and now suddenly woke up from slumber alleging that he has not received policy documents. This clearly seems to be an afterthought. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared through Advocate Sh.C.S.Malhi and he sought adjournment for filing reply but reply to the main complaint and costs so established by the forum not paid. Case called several times during the day of 15.6.2016 but neither the opposite party no.2 nor their counsel had come present for depositing of costs and also for filing of reply, therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
5. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
6. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Associate Manager (Legal) OP1/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/35 and closed the evidence.
7. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigating sides. We find although the complainant had allegedly opted for only a one-time investment of Rs.5.0 Lac as premium in an insurance plan but the OP service providers, in connivance with each other and having got his signatures (in confidence) had issued him a total ‘7’ insurance policies with an annual premium demand of Rs.6.50 Lac (approximately) after having debited the complainant’s SB A/c with an instant premia payment of Rs.6,99,830/-. Naturally, the complainant upon receipt of the ‘6’ policies out of the total of seven nos. did object/protest and also instructed for their cancellation and refund/credit of the total premia amount with interest back into his Bank A/c but to no avail with the result that presently all the policies have since lapsed on account of non-payment of the due annual premia. We find that the complainant’s depositions vide his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of receipted policies (Ex.C2 to Ex.C7) prove the factual aspects of the allegations as made out in the present complaint. On the other hand the OP1 insurers have amongst their many rebuttals had also deposed their contention vide affidavit Ex.OP1/1 that the complainant being an educated awakened young army officer having consentedly opted to invest his savings in said polices cannot be presently allowed to retrace back from his willful commitments. Somehow, the above pleading loses its inflated authenticity at the face of the complainant’s annual income (from all sources) accepted at Rs.11.00 Lac in the related consultant Confidential Reports (Ex.OP1/2 of 21.07.2011 & Ex.OP1/17 of 15.09.2011) which under no circumstances shall validate an annual saving of Rs.6.50 Lac i.e., 60 % of the gross income. It also dilutes the evidentiary value of all other OP1 documents right from Ex.OP1/19 to Ex.OP1/35.
8. We find that the OP2 Bank has preferred to stay absent (to be proceeded against ‘ex-parte’) from the present proceedings and going by the trite law it can be judicially deduced that it has no defense to prosecute in its favor. Under such circumstances and at the face of such instances, an adverse but discretionary inference shall also be free to be drawn but of course under the judicious restraint.
9. Moreover, we are of the considered opinion that it shall never be expected from a senior serving Indian Army Officer to have made an inadvertently liberal annual investment of Rs.6.50 Lac (in insurance policies) out of a total annual gross income of Rs.11.00 Lac just to let the policies lapse over tamely and that too on account of non-payment of premia. Thus, it shall be judicially deduced that the complainant had opted only for an investment of Rs.5.00 Lac as one-time insurance premia and he shall not suffer for the lapsed annually paid premium policies as that were never opted by him.
10. Presently, the counsel for the complainant has divulged that he is no longer inclined to convert his investment even to one single premium policy at the face of the lapse of the instant policies unfit for revival as expressly disclosed by the OP1 insurers with the OP2 Bank shouldering no express liability by preferring to stay absent; we proceed to statutorily adjudicate the subject matter dispute pertaining to the present complaint.
11 In the light of the all above, we find that there has indeed been an infringement of consumer rights of the present complainant at the hands of opposite party service providers and thus we partly allow the present complaint and consequently ORDER the titled opposite parties to refund/ repay back full premia amount of the related policies to the present complainant besides Rs10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
December, 14 2016. Member.
*MK*
