1. Shiba Prosad Mondal,
2. Kaberi Mondal,

            Both at Flat No.IE, 1002, Avishikta,

            Phase-II, 369/3, Purbachal, Kalitala Road,

            P.S. Garfa, Kolkata-78.                                                                          _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Regd. office at Delphi-B Wing, 2^nd Floor,

            Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani Business

            Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076 and

            Local office at 55, Chowringhjee Road,

            Maharaj Restaurant Building,

            P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 71.                                                 ________ Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   21    Dated   21-02-2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainants maintained an account in the bank of HSBC situated at Dalhousie Square. As an account holder they used to visit the bank frequently. In course of bank transaction they were very much known to the staff of the said bank and as such they were repeatedly asked to invest money in the lucrative insurance policy of Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the o.p. no.1. On repeated requests the complainants applied for a policy being Tata AIG Equity Fund individual life (TEL) (hereinafter called as the mother policy) having policy no.U200272722 on 9.2.06, which was issued on 17.2.06 with face value amounting to Rs.15 lakhs. The date of maturity of the policy was fixed on 9.2.21 and term of policy was 15 years and as per terms of the policy the premium of Rs.2 lakhs was to be paid in fifteen yearly instalments and last of such instalment (premium due date) was fixed as 9.2.20.

            In course of subsistence of the said ‘mother policy’ one Mr. Swarup Saha, who called the complainants at their residence and introduced himself as an agent of Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., approached the complainant no.1 and tried to convince that the mother policy is not very lucrative, would be yielding nothing in long terms as TATA is shifting focus to new policies and now it is paying in dead fund. The said agent tried to project a new policy, which is much better and much lucrative in respect of benefit then the said mother policy.

            Being induced by and relying upon the representation and rosy picture given by the said agent and believing the same to be true and being convinced of the explanation of the agent, the complainant no.1 went for the said policy (hereinafter to be referred as the 1^st changeover policy) after minutely studying the Sales Illustration Copy. The policy was numbered as U166865545 having policy date as 17.7.09 and issue date as 26.8.09. The policy term was of 10 years with premium payable Rs.1 lakh annually and maturity of the said policy was 17.8.19 having the 1^st reset date as 10.11.11 and last resent date as 10.2.18.

            Sometime in Sept. 2010 one Mr. Jayita Samaddar, another agent, along with one gentleman who introduced himself as their colleague paid a visit to the house of the complainant and wanted to discuss regarding some new policy, which have lucrative offer much better than the previous policies. The said Mrs. Jayita Samaddar had explained some high NAV and high growth policies with other benefits. Being misguided by the said representative and/or agent of o.p. and after perusing the Sales Illustration Chart both the complainants agreed to open the said new policy.

            Complainant no.1 herein gave instruction to Mrs. Jayita Samaddar to take appropriate steps to transfer a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the said mother policy. At that point of time the said Mrs. Jayita Samaddar cleverly convinced the complainants that it would enjoy some more benefit if they open two policies of Rs.1.5 lakhs each in the name of complainant nos.1 and 2. Being convinced by the said wrongful instruction given b y the agent and/or representative of o.p. insurance company, both the complainants applied for withdrawal of the fund of Rs.3 lakhs from the mother policy.

            In view of the said instruction two new policies were opened vide policy no.U157265109 in the name of the complainant no.1, having policy date 14.8.10 and the premium was fixed Rs.1.5 lakhs annually. The name of the policy was ‘Apex Pension Policy 10 Investment Fund PI-6’.  On the same day another new policy vide no.U044036399 was issued in the name of the complainant no.2 with policy date 14.8.10 along with premium of Rs.1,5, lakhs annually. The name of the policy was ‘Apex Premium 10 Investment Fund PI-6’.

            The complainants further state that again in the month of May 2011 one Mr. Rashbehari Moitra who claimed himself as a representative of Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., Howrah Branch paid a visit at the residence of the complainants to discuss the status of the polices made so far and narrated that all the policies which had been made so far would prove to be unprofitable and the first policy i.e. the mother policy would have been far better than the other policies done subsequently if it was continued. So it appeared that in fact by this method o.p. being the insurance company, cheated the insured through their representatives. Mr. Rashbehari Mointra further informed that the partial withdrawal charges once deducted would never be reserved as claimed by the different representatives of o.p.

            Complainants further state and submit that it is very much unfortunate that a reputed organization like Tata AIG has committed the aforesaid illegal and wrongful act for their wrongful gain by causing breach of trust which is based on utmost good faith. The act on the part of o.p. is nothing but a unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale by opening new policies. The said act of o.p. has been adopted with unfair method by false representation orally as well as written or by visible representation. In fact o.p. made a false and misleading representation for unlawful gain. Hence the case was filed by the complainants with the prayers contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service on its part being a service provider to its consumers / complainants and complainants are entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. and o.p. is directed to cancel all the insurance policies which were prepared and issued in the name of the complainants and o.p. is further directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.