DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 322

 Instituted on:   01.08.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     28.09.2023 

1. Sukhvir Singh aged about 49 years son of Gurbachan Singh;
2. Davinder Singh S/o Sukhvir Singh both resident of village Sakrodi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Corporate Office: 14^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Managing Director.
2. TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Kuanl Tower, The Mall, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager PIN 141001.
3. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), 3^rd Floor, Parisrama Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, through its G.M. PIN 500001.

 ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op.no.1&2     : Shri Amit Kumar Bedi and Shri

  Amit Goyal Adv.

For the Op.no.3 : None.

QUORUM 

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

1. The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint is filed by complainant and he pleaded that in the second week of July 2016 complainant number 1 received a telephone call from Mr. B.K. Srivastava alleging himself as Senior Manager of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. and asked the complainant number 1 that their company has launched a new FDR scheme. Under this scheme company will pay @ 24% p.a. for three years and the said amount can be withdraw at any time after 1 year. On believing assertion of the representative of the Op.1 and Op.2 obtained the signatures of the complainants on blank Performa for the purpose of investment and complainant paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the said agent of Ops. After one month complainant number 1 again got the telephonic call from Gurdeep Singh alleging himself to be the company official and asked the complainants to make the investment in the company by saying that the said plan is going to close on  30.09.2016 and allured the complainants to make the investment in their company. The said officials obtained the six cheques from the complainant number 1 of different amounts for making the investment in the company and again obtained the signature of Complainant number 1 & 2. Complainants issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dates for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and official of ops issued the receipts of the payments. In the month of May 2017 complainant no.1 received a call from New Delhi by saying that the company has declared the bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the investment made by him and the official of the company again visited the house of Complainants and again obtained the signature of the complainants for releasing the bonus and also obtained four cheques bearing numbers 771304 & 771305 of Rs. 99,000/- in total and another cheques number 491947 & 491948 of Rs. 90,000/-. In the month of July 2017 complainants were shocked to receive a call from the officials of HDFC Life Insurance co. Ltd. and where in the complainant no.1 was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 25.7.2017. If the complainants have not deposit the amount, then the policy shall be lapsed. The official of Ops disclosed the policy number 18582404 to the complainants. Complainant did not obtained any policy and the amount has been taken on the pretext of making the FDR @ 24% p.a. and the official told that three policies have been issued from their company under which the complainants have to pay a regularly 2,00,000/- p.a. for seven years. The official also told that other receipt pertains to other insurance companies i.e. Kotak Mohindra, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Op.1 and Op.2. The complainants visited the office of Kotak Mohindra at Patiala and they told to the complainants that these receipts bearing policy number 03535614 and 03535690 under which the complainants make the investment for twelve years for Rs. 1,56,000/- regularly and if the amount was not paid then these amount shall be forfeited. Complainants visited the office of Op.2. Then they disclosed to the complainant under policy number C265512993 and C2655529656 to pay 1,89,000/- premium annually for twelve years. Thereafter complainants then visited the office of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sangrur. After seeing the receipts, the officials disclosed that policy number 0330253933 and policy number 0330243905. Complainants will have to deposit regular premium of Rs. 1,10,000/- annually for ten years. Complainants were shocked to know that the officials of Ops mislead the complainants for making the investments in their company. Complainants are not in position to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,56,000/-  p.a. The complainants are poor agriculturist. Complainants came to know that the agents of the Ops have played fraud with the complainants and grabbed the hard earned money of the complainants by disclosing wrong averments regarding the investments. On 22.9.2017 an amount of Rs. 54,204.77Ps was deducted from the bank account of the complainant number 2. It is the duty of the Op.1 and Op.2 and their agents to verify the fact that the person who is getting the insurance is having sufficient income to pay the regular premium or not and in the case in hand, the premium of Rs. 6,56,000/- p.a. in all the policies are not possible for the complainants and his son. Op.1 and Op.2 have issued the policies in contravention to the rules of IRDA ( OP.3) and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice Ops appeared and filed joint reply by Op.1 and Op.2 and taking preliminary objections that at very outset the replying Ops denied all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable. Replying Ops had effectively covered the risk of the complainants for the period they remained invested with the replying Ops. As such they have already availed the benefit of the amount paid. On the basis of information furnished in the proposal form, the proposal was processed by the Ops and the policies were issued to the life assured. The proposal filled in digital. As such there are no signatures on the proposal form. The signature of the life insured is taken on customer declaration form or consent form, an addendum to proposal form. The proposal is filled in the presence of life assured. The complainant ever had free look in period from the date of receipt of policies, to return the policies. In case they did not like the plan for full refund.  Which they failed to do so. The policies were delivered at the registered address of the complainants. Reply on merits, all the allegations are denied by the Op.1 and Op.2. Two proposal forms were filled, one by complainant on 15.5.2017 and other by his son Davinder Singh on 19.5.2017. Under policy number C265512993 clearly mentioned cheque number 071305 dated 15.5.2017 of Punjab and Sind Bank for Rs. 98,563/- and for policy number 265529656 clearly mentioned cheque number 491948 dated 19.5.2017 of State Bank of Patiala for Rs. 89,225/- were given by the life assured at the time of filling the proposal form towards initial Premium. Complainants have no complaint of non receipt of the said policy. The replying Ops have not violated any rules and regulations issued by IRDA for selling life insurance plan and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainants be dismissed with the costs.
3. Reply filed by Op.3 separately and he pleaded that all the allegations are denied made in the complaint, except which are admitted specifically. The complainant's have observed inter alia the following in their complaint. Believing the false promises of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant no.1 showed his willingness to make the investment and he was told that their local agent will come with the detailed plan to the complainant no.1.  On believing the words of the agent of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainants made the investment in company of Op.1 and Op.2 for Rs. 40,000/-. Complainants issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dates for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and the above said amount were debited from the account of complainants. It is respectfully submitted that no specific relief is sought against the Op.3. At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint is basically between the complainants and Op.1 and Op.2 relating to cancellation of the policy sold to him by way of spurious calling and mis-selling and refund of amount paid by the complainants. Op.3 has nothing to do in the matter. Since, the onus to resolve the grievance is on the Op.1 and Op.2. The Op.3 has no role in this regard as it discharges regulatory and supervisory functions. The Op.3 lays down broad policy and does not adjudicate upon dispute between individual policy holder and insurance company. The complainants can sue the insurance company for any deficiency in service, unfair trade practices etc. On a perusal of a complaint, it appears to be a case of spurious calling and mis-selling. Op.3 first issue a public notice dated 4.11.2010 that some instances have been observe that general public are receiving calls from individuals who claim to be representatives of IRDAI. Op.3 is a regulatory body which does not involve directly or through any representative in sale of any kind of insurance or financial products and any person making any kind of transaction will be doing the same at one's own risk. Again Op.3 issued a public notice on 29.1.2014 and 15.8.2014 detailed advertisement and Informing public about the spurious calls. There is no relationship of consumer or service provider between the Op.3 and the complainant. Op.3 is statutory body set up by an act of parliament, does not charge any fee or receive any consideration for the statutory functions it renders. Therefore, the consumer protection Act is not attracted to Op.3. Op.3 neither a proper nor necessary party in these proceedings and prayed dismiss the complaint against Op.3.
4. Complainant has submitted into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 & Ex.C-13 attested affidavit. Similarly, Op.no.1 submitted into evidence affidavit Ex.Op.1&2/1 alongwith documents Ex.Op.1&2/2 to Op.1&2/11and Similarly Op.3 has annexed annexures 1 to 11.  
5. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same for avoiding the repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
6. During arguments the averments of the complainants counsel are that no evidence with regard to delivery of policy documents issued by the Ops qua the complainant. Further, the issue raised by the complainant that the proposal form was not read over to the complainant. Complainant also pleaded at para number 3(b) of the complaint that the agent of the Ops obtained the signature on blank paper. Moreover, no evidence with regard to the income was placed on record by the Ops to show that the complainant was having the capacity to pay the annual premium. From the said evidence, it is clear that the alleged policy was issued by the Ops on mis representation by creating self style documents. The policy in question having annual premium of Rs. 86,000/- & Rs. 95,000/- respectively. Complainant has placed on record Bank Account Statement Ex.C-10 from 16.9.2016 to 26.9.2016 just within 9 days the amount of Rs. 4,26,000/- was grabbed. There was no occasion for proposing six insurance policies of different insurance companies. The agent of Ops in-connivance with each other got issued the policies of different companies in order to full fill their targets. No affidavit of agent produced by the Ops to prove the factum of proposing the policy by the complainant as alleged.
7. It is writ large on the file  that on 15.5.2017 as per Ex.C-8 first premium receipt under policy number C265512993 issued by Op.1 and Op.2 in favour of insured Maninder Singh Grewal but he has neither filed the complaint nor authorized any representative to file the consumer Complaint qua complainant number 1 & 2. Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides the definition of consumer. From the perusal of the record, We feel that the complainant number 1 Sukhvir Singh is only a proposer as per Ex.Op.1&2/7 customer declaration form executed at Ludhiana, he put his signature in Punjabi language on 15.5.2017 and Maninder Singh life insured also put his signature in English language. This Commission has observed that the complainant number 1 is not a consumer qua the Op.1 & 2 and he is not liable for any relief under consumer complaint number 322 of 01.08.2018 under policy number C265512993. As per Ex.C-9 under policy number 265529656 the payment mode was annual. The amount received of Rs. 90,000/- under the policy. However, as per Ex.C-9, policy owner and insured name was mentioned as Davinder Singh (Now Complainant number 2). The first premium receipt issued by Op.1 and Op.2 under policy number C265529656 on 24.5.2017. Annual Rs. 90,000/- paid as premium by the complainant number 2. We also examined Ex.C-11 complainant number 2 having account number 55152446747 of State Bank of Patiala branch, Bhawanigarh. On 23.5.2017 cheque number 491948 of Rs. 47,000/- and cheque number 491947 of Rs. 43,000/- issued by complainant number 2 as premium qua Op.1 and Op.2. Complainant number 1 also made payment as per Ex.C-10 on 17.5.2017 of two cheques number 71305 of Rs. 49,000/- and cheque number 71304 of Rs. 50,000/- to TALIC(TATA AIA Life Insurance Company)but as per Ex.C-8 policy number C265512993 insured name mentioned as Maninder Singh Grewal.
8. Per contra, we have examine Ex.Op.1&2/2 proposal form of Policy number C265529656 insured name was mentioned as complainant no.2 sum insured of Rs. 9,46,000/- and premium of Rs. 86,000/- mentioned. Premium paying term was twelve years and policy term was 25 years. This Commission has considered that Ex.Op.1 &2/2 is a digital form which was executed on 19.5.2017. On page 8 of policy document Ex.Op.1&2/2 clause 6 is reproduced as under :-

"The surrender value payable is higher of guaranteed surrender value and special surrender value and is available provided at least first full years premium has been paid."

9. Ex.Op.1&2/4 is copy of cheque dated 19.5.2017 of Rs. 47,000/- issued by complainant number 2 and he put his signature in English language. We feel that complainant number 2 is not an illiterate person. Ex.Op.1&2/5 is a Permanent Account Number HCNPS4176P of the complainant number 2 issued by Income Tax Department. On the PAN Card complainant also put his signature in English language. As per Ex.Op.1&2/6 is also standard proposal form bearing policy number C265512993 of Maninder Singh Grewal   S/o Sukhvir Singh. On this policy the proposer is his father Sukhvir Singh. Nature of age proof is mentioned as PAN Card. On column number 11 of the proposal form the highest Educational qualification was mentioned as graduate of life assured namely Maninder Singh Grewal. On column number 16 the occupation class mentioned as agriculturist. Column number 20 mentioned as Adhaar Card number 498399060266 and Column number 21 mentioned as PAN Card number CWFPS2285E. The basic sum insured Rs. 10,45,000/-. Annual premium mentioned as Rs. 95,000/- and premium payment term shown as twelve years. It transpires from document Ex.Op.1&2/8 the consumer confidential report (CCR)vide policy number C265512993, It is clear cut mentioned that the name of life assured is Maninder Singh Grewal and the proposer is Sukhvir Singh. Ex.Op.1&2/10 is a medical test request form with regard to Maninder Singh Grewal conducted on 20.5.2017 at Sibia health clinic, Sangrur. On the medical report concerned Doctor as well as Maninder Singh Grewal proposed insured put their signature in English language. Doctor also put his stamp under his signature. Clinical pathology report of Maninder Singh also conducted on 20.5.2017 at New Prince Clinical laboratory Sangrur. Doctor also put his signature and stamped on it. On rhythm report Maninder Singh also put his signature in English language. Maninder Singh picked the name plate of Sibia Health care Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur. Photo also clarifies the signature of Maninder Singh. Maninder Singh Grewal also put his signature on the photocopy of his driving licence. From this angle all the documentary evidence itself proved the true story. In this situation the principle of "Res Ipsa loquitur" is fully applicable in the present complaint in hand. This Commission has observed that Maninder Singh Grewal S/o Sukhvir Singh knowingly and intentionally did not file the Consumer Complaint. He knows very well what will be the decision of the case. This Commission has no hesitation to hold that the major points for consideration with regard to delivery of policy documents are not supplied to the complainant by the ops is not believable on this ground that the services availed through digital online proposal form. The policy in question is a digital document. So, there is no need to read over the proposal form to the complainant. The person who avails the services of policy, he himself knows better how he can arrange the premium amount with regard to policy in question. In the light of Ex.C-9, the complainant number 2 had deposited the premium dated 20.5.2017 qua the Op.1 and Op.2 under policy number C265529656. It transpires from the document of the policy Ex.Op.1&2/2 clause 6, the surrender value is provided at least the first full years premium has been paid. This Commission has the considered view in the light of clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question the complainant no.2 is liable for relief.
10. Resultantly, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we partly allow the complaint of the complainant no.2 and we direct the Op.1 & Op.2 to refund the amount Rs. 90,000/- alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the complainant number 2 and consolidated sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
11. This order be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
13. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.    

                                Announced.                                              

                                28^th, September, 2023

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                         Member                   President