BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.333 of 2014

Date of Instt. 23.09.2014

Date of Decision :05.05.2015

Bhupinder Singh son of Puran Singh R/o H.No.56, Village Boparai, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd, 14th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013

2. Manpreet Singh, Serving in Punjab National Bank, Binpalke Branch Bhogpur District Jalandhar, Agent of Tata AIA Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Nipun Bajaj Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Amit Sekhri Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant has purchased one Tata AIA Life Policy No.U000709194, through Manpreet Singh, agent, presently serving with Punjab National Bank, Binpalke, Jalandhar. Manpreet Singh agent of Tata AIA Life Insurance Company came to his house and represented that if the complainant take the aforesaid policy, he will get after three years the double of the policy amount. The complainant in good faith gave Rs.20,000/- to said Manpreet Singh agent as first installment of the policy vide receipt bearing No.607914 and temporary receipt No.TR2253242 dated 13.3.2008. The complainant has already deposited three installments of Rs.20,000/-. Total amount of Rs.60,000/- has been paid to the Tata AIA and waiting for the payment of maturity amount of the said policy. But instead of paying him the full maturity amount, the company has paid him only a sum of Rs.48,917.30/- stating that the said policy was for the period of five years. Manpreet Singh played fraud with him and sold the insurance policy saying that the policy will mature in three years. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the said agent Manpreet Singh to pay the double amount paid by him alongwith interest.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that online proposal form in the present case was filled by the complainant on 13.3.2008 for purchasing Tata AIA Invest Assure Care Plan and the policy in question i.e policy No.U000709194 dated 17.3.2008 was issued and it commenced on the even date. Copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form is attached. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid insurance policy is unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through share market/speculative transactions and main motive for investment is for profit and gains. The complainant Bhupinder Singh life assured(herein after referred to as LA) had submitted to the opposite party No.1, proposal/application dated 13.3.2008 for the purchase of Tata AIA Invest Assure Care Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No.U000709194 dated 17.3.2008 and the same commenced from 17.3.2008. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with the ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the opposite party No.1. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs. Before acceptance of the proposal by the opposite party No.1, the contents of the proposal/application, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the LA in the language best known to him. On the basis of the information furnished in the application/proposal form, the proposal was processed by the opposite party No.1 and thereafter the said policy was issued to the LA. However, it is submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by the opposite party No.1, adequate information with regard to the product, nature and its significance was given to the complainant. In addition to the above the sales literatures and the necessary guidance was also provided by the concerned financial consultant and were duly explained to the complainant in the language best known to him. The complainant has not come to his Forum with clean hands as the complainant has admitted the receipts of policy documents in para No.1 of the complaint. Policy documents delivered to the LA provided him a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policy to the opposite party No.1 by stating the reason thereof. The act and conduct of the complainant is not returning/surrendering the policy within the given time signified his acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said policy documents. The complainant has manufactured a concocted story as no such assurance was ever given by the opposite party No.1 or its official or its any of the employee. Moreover, the complainant is an educated person and it is clearly written at page No.3 of the proposal form, the name of the plan which is Invest Assure Care, amount of insurance is Rs.1,50,000/- policy term is 15 years, premium amount inclusive of service tax is Rs.20,000/-. The complainant has signed the proposal form in English. When a person signs a documents, it is presumed that he knew the contents of the documents and has signed the same after going through the same. The complainant paid three insurance premium amounting to Rs.60,000/- and thereafter the complainant surrendered the policy vide policy serving pay out request dated 18.11.2013, hence, as per terms of the policy, the opposite party No.1 has paid a surrendered value of policy i.e Rs.48,917.30/- to the complainant. There is no policy of any of the insurance company which give double of the maturity value within the period of three years from the purchase of the same.

3. Written reply filed by the opposite party No.2 is also on the same lines.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsels for the opposite parties.

7. Complainant contended that opposite party No.2, who was agent of opposite party No.1 insurance company representing that if he will obtain the policy in question and pays the premium amount for three years then he will get double amount after three years. He further contended that he deposited three installments of Rs.20,000/- each and has paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- but the insurance company instead of paying him full promised amount only paid him Rs.48,917.30/- stating that the said policy was for the period of five years. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant obtained policy after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that policy terms was 15 years but after three years the complainant did not pay any installment and as such surrendered value of the policy was given to him. He further contended that even the complainant can not be termed as consumer as the policy was unit linked and the amount of the policy was invested in shares which is speculative in nature. He further contended that complainant obtained policy to earn profit and as such he can not be termed as consumer. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by complainant in person and learned counsels for the opposite parties. Ex.O2 is application form. It is signed by the complainant. Where any person signs any document, the presumption is that he has signed the same after fully understanding its contents. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd & Anr. Versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

8. On the top of the application form Ex.OP2 it is mentioned that in this policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. Further in the proposal form premium paying term of 15 years is mentioned. Further in the column relating to fund selected, growth maximizer fund 100% is mentioned. So it means that complainant opted for investment in growth maximizer fund upto 100%. So the policy was unit linked. In Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors, Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 decided on 23.4.2013 by Hon'ble Nationa Commission it has been held as under:-

The District Forum observed that admittedly the complainant is an advocate having vast experience and is also a Notary. His wife Tarini Agrawal was the recognized agent of the insurance company. In such circumstances, the allegation of fraud being practiced on him in the matter of issuance of policy is totally unacceptable. The Forum also observed that the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection, the Forum placed reliance on the decision of this commission in the case of Smt.Abanti Kumar Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, (FA No.162 of 2010).

After hearing the complainant, who argued the matter on admission personally, and going through the relevant documents available in the LCR, we see no reason to differ from the finding recorded by the learned District Forum. Accordingly, we reject the appeal memo at the admission stage".

9. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. In the present case the complainant can not be termed as consumer. Consequently the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. His remedy is to approach Civil Court or any other appropriate forum or authority. Even if the arguments sake, the complainant is accepted as consumer, he is not entitled to anything more. He paid only three premiums. So policy lapsed and opposite party insurance company has paid him surrender value. The policy was taken in the year 2008 and the whereas the present complaint has been filed on 22.9.2014 i.e after six years. In the complaint, the complainant has not specifically pleaded that he did not receive the policy documents. The complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days, meaning thereby, he was agreeable to the terms and condition of the policy. The complainant has also filed the complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat and this fact is evident from copy of complaint Ex.OP5. From the perusal of the complaint filed before Permanent Lok Adalat, it is evident that in that complaint the complainant has pleaded that he was told that he will have to pay three yearly installment and then after six years he will get double amount of the insured sum. On the other hand, in para 2 of the present complaint, the complainant has pleaded that the agent came to his house and told him that if he take aforesaid policy, he will get after three years double the policy amount. So he has taken in consistent stand before this Forum and Permanent Lok Adalat.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, in case the complainant approaches Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum or authority then no observation made in this order on the merits of the controversy shall have any bearing. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

05.05.2015 Member Member President