Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
This is an appeal filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Order dated 31-07-2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit II, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as, District Forum) in C. C. No. 90/2014, whereby the instant complaint has been decreed in favour of the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP Insurance Company thereof has preferred this appeal.
The long and short of Complainant’s case is that representatives of OP Insurance Company, i.e., OP No. 3 in the pretext of arranging loan for his business from the OP Insurer, convinced him to take some insurance policies. However, despite such assurance, when he did not get any loan from the OP Insurer, he submitted a written complaint to the OP No. 3 on 03-09-2013, but to no avail. As he was in desperate need of money, the Complainant requested the OP No. 2 to return the deposited sum, but it refused to take any action. When his desperate perseverance for months together did not yield any positive result, finding no other alternative, Complainant filed the case before the Ld. District Forum.
In its defence, by filing a WV, it is stated by the OP Nos. 1&2 that the Complainant was duly apprised of the pros and cons of the insurance policies concerned prior getting the proposal form duly signed by him. These OPs are not privy to what transpired between the Complainant and the OP No. 3 and their officer, and hence these OPs are not responsible for the same. The policies were issued based on the duly filled up and signed proposal form. Hence, the complaint case deserves to be dismissed.
We are to consider in this appeal, as to whether there is any infirmity in the impugned order, or not.
Decision with reasons
The allegation of the Respondent is that he was misguided by the authorized representatives of the Appellants, who assured him of arranging loan for his business venture against taking some insurance policies of the Appellant Insurer. On the other hand, it is the case of the Appellants that such insurance policies were issued based on the proposal forms duly filled up and signed by the Respondent. They disowned any liability for the alleged deceiving act of the Respondent No. 2.
Now, let us see, whether the allegation of the Respondent No. 1 holds any water, if so, whether the Appellants can be held liable for the same.
From the photocopy of Proposal Form on record, it transpires that annual income of the Respondent No. 1 was declared as Rs. 2,64,000/-. It further transpires from the said proposal form that apart from the concerned policy for which the proposal form was filled up, Respondent No. 1 had taken three insurance policies of the Appellant Insurance Company, out of which one policy got lapsed. It appears from the petition of complaint that the Respondent No. 1 was initially convinced to take a policy for which he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 74,961/-. Within few days, the Respondent No. 1 was again compelled to take another policy by paying a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 was again made to pay a sum of Rs. 37,000/- for taking another insurance policy.
First of all, we must state, it is quite unusual for a human being to take three insurance policies in such quick succession. That apart, it is hard to believe that a young businessman, whose annual income was only Rs. 2,64,000/-, would put himself under strain/obligation to set aside more than 50% of his annual income, for paying insurance premiums with full consciousness of the fact that return from these policies were not guaranteed, but highly volatile/unpredictable. Similarly, it is quite unusual for a human being to seek refund of invested money within two months of making such investment.
All these facts make it amply clear that everything was not above board in persuading the Respondent No. 1 to take three policies of the Appellant Insurance Company.
Although the Appellant has denied any liability for the alleged illegalities on the part of the Respondent No. 2, who are acting as an agent of the Appellant, in our considered view, the Appellant must be vicariously responsible for every act of omission and commission on the part of its agents. In this regard, we are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2015 (2) CPJ 649: 2015 (2) CPR 10.
However, on going through the ordering portion of the impugned order, it appears that the Ld. District Forum has been too generous in awarding reliefs in favour of the Respondent No. 1 without appreciating the fact that such generosity is not permissible under the law. Thus, the impugned order requires some modification.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That A/1297/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the Respondents. The impugned order is modified as under:
Appellants are directed to pay Rs. 1,42,500/- to the Respondent No. 1 together with compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-, respectively within 30 days hence, i.d., Appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. over Rs. 1,42,500/- from this date till full and final payment is made.
