Haryana

Karnal

464/2012

Jaskirat Singh Minor S/o Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. V.K. Kapoor

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No.464 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 21.09.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 25.07.2016

 

Jaskirat Singh minor son of Shri Kuldeep Singh resident of village Makhu Majra, District Karnal, through his father Shri Kuldeep Singh being his natural guardian and next friend.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director Shri M.Suresh SCO no.244-246, 2^nd floor, Sector-12, Karnal.

2. Kuldeep Singh Agent of Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.244-246, 2^nd floor, Sector-12 Karnal.

.                                           

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shr V.K. Kapoor Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri A.K. Vohra Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 given up.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by minor Jaskirat Singh through his father Kuldeep Singh as natural guardian and next friend, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that in the month of April, 2011 opposite party no.2 approached his father as he was hardly 3½ years old, for insurance purposes and convinced his father to obtain insurance policy. Accordingly, his father duly filled up the form for insurance in his name, signed the said policy form and paid R.27529/- as premium. When insurance policy no.C-67523475 was received , his father was astonished as the policy was in the name of minor and even his signatures on the policy form were forged. Therefore, his father met the opposite party no.2 and enquired about the wrong policy as well as forged signatures, but opposite party no.2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, his father lodged complaint to opposite party no.1 as well as Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh and requested to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.27529/- with interest thereon. An application was also moved in the head office of opposite party at Ambala, but opposite party did not rectify the policy and no action was taken against the opposite party no.2, who had forged the signatures of his father. The opposite parties even refused to refund the amount of premium. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant and his father suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated by this forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that after understanding and duly deliberating upon the terms and conditions of the Mahalife Gold the complainant applied for an insurance policy vide proposal form bearing no.C167523475 dated 31.3.2011 for assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and premium of Rs.27,529/- was paid. Accordingly, policy was issued on 5.4.2011 and the policy document was dispatched on 9.4.2011 through speed post and the same was delivered to the address of the complainant. The said policy contained a notice on Free-look whereby the policy holder had a right to reconsider his/her decision to purchase the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy document, in case he/she  did not agree to the terms and conditions of the said policy. In the month of October, 2011, the opposite parties received a request for cancellation of policy. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the complainant against the said cancellation request that the cancellation request was beyond the free look period. Thus, complainant was estopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the contract and denying the contents of the proposal form. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In view of statement of learned counsel for complainant, the opposite party no.2 was given up on  22.3.2013.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1, affidavit of Harsimran Singh  Assistant Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to O8 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that opposite party no.2 had approached the father of complainant for insurance purpose and on his persuation his father filled up the form in his name, signed the policy form and paid Rs.27529/- as premium. When the insurance policy was received, it was found that the policy was in the name of the complainant, who was minor at that time and signatures of his father on the policy were forged. Thereafter, his father requested to cancel the policy and refund the amount with interest thereon, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his request. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1, due to which the complainant and his father suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

8.                The argument advanced by learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted being devoid of force. A perusal of the copy of application form Ex.O2 shows that the policy was to be obtained in the name of Jaskirat Singh son of Kuldeep Singh i.e. complainant and the same was signed by Kuldeep Singh. It is clear from the application that the complainant was minor at that time and his weight was mentioned as 8Kgs and height 2’3”. Therefore, the application form was filled up and signed by his father Kuldeep Singh. The application was signed by Kuldeep Singh in English language and his signatures indicate that he is well educated person. Affidavit of Kuldeep Singh Ex.CW1/A cannot be taken to be the gospel truth to prove that his signatures on the application were forged. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence the plea of the complainant that the signatures of his father on the application were forged, cannot be accepted. It is settled proposition of law that when a party has signed any document it is to be presumed that the same was read properly, unless fraud is proved. Presumption is strong in case of educated person. In this context reference with advantage may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. Versus Aggarwal Steel 2010(1) SCC 83.

                   Under such circumstances, it stands proved that the policy was obtained by father of the complainant in the name of complainant and in that regard the application was duly filled up and signed by him.

9.                The application form was filled up on 31.3.2011 as is evident from Ex.C2. As per the case of the opposite party the policy was issued on 5.4.2011 and the same was dispatched on 9.4.2011 through speed post. The complainant has neither mentioned the date of delivery of the policy in the complaint nor his father disclosed the date of delivery of policy in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, therefore, it is to be considered that the policy was received by the complainant through his father in the month of April, 2011. As per terms and conditions of the policy complainant/his father could cancel the policy within free look period of 15 days on receipt of policy document, but no such step for cancellation of the policy was taken within the prescribed period. However, an application for cancellation of the policy was moved in month of October,2011, the copy of which is Ex.C3. The letter issued by opposite party no.4 Ex.C4 shows that the cancellation request was sent by father of complainant on 3.10.2011 and the opposite party no.1 made it clear that the request could not be processed as the same was received beyond the free look period. Under such facts and circumstances, it cannot be said in any manner that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 25.07.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member