Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Insofar as the facts and circumstances/nature of dispute of Appeal Nos. A/1120/2016, A/1121/2016, A, 1122/2016, and A/1123/2016 filed by Sri Babulal Das, Ms Saswati Dey nee Das, Ms Shrabanti Das and Ms Soma Das, respectively, are identical, all these Appeal are disposed through this common order.

Facts, as depicted in the petition of complaint, briefly stated, are that, the Complainants, with an intention to make single premium fixed deposits, approached the OPs for this purpose and as per the advice of the OPs, put their signature on the respective proposal forms without going through the same in good faith.  However, on receipt of policy documents, they realized that the same were actually regular traditional premium paying policies.  Therefore, time and again the OPs were approached to rectify the anomalies.  Allegedly, despite repeated assurance, the OPs did not walk the talk.  Finding no other alternative, they moved the Ld. District Forum for the purpose of redressal of their grievance.

Per contra case of the OPs, is that, all the policyholders are educated persons and they put their signature on the proposal forms after satisfying themselves about the nitty-gritty of the concerned policies.  Moreover, all the policy documents were sent to them through post.  If they had any grievance about the policies, they could return the policies within the free-look period.  The first complaint was lodged by the Complainant after nearly one year.  Even then also, they were requested to provide certain documents.  However, the Complainants did not bother to respond to the said request of the OPs and instead filed the complaints. 

Decision with reasons

We have heard the submission made by Ld. Advocates of both sides and gone through the documents on record.

It transpires from the documents on record that the Appellants made the following policies in between the period from 03-12-2013 and 14-08-2014.

It is the case of the Appellants that they intended to invest their hard-earned money in single-premium fixed deposits.  However, the Respondents allegedly, taking undue advantage of Appellants’ utmost faith in the sincerity of purpose of the former, obtained their signatures on the proposal forms meant for regular traditional premium paying policies.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the allegation was indeed true.  In that case, they could return the policies forthwith on receipt of the same.  It is admitted by the Appellants that they read between the lines of the policies on receipt of the same.  It is obvious, therefore, that the provision for cancellation of policy within the free-look period, as clearly stipulated in the forwarding letters, did not escape their attention.

It is though claimed by the Appellants that, on receipt of the policy documents, they immediately rushed to the office of the Respondents and asked them to rectify the anomalies, no documentary proof is forthcoming before us to support such contention.

Above all, even if we assume that such request was made verbally, it is hardly believable that despite their bitter experience in respect of Policy No. 10078550, stood in the name of Sri Babulal Das (date of commencement – 03-12-2013), they did not learn any lesson from it, but made similar blunder not once or twice, but 6 times in a row till 14-08-2014, when the last policy bearing no. 10158954 was made by said Sri Babulal Das.

It is also noteworthy that Appellants have not furnished copies of their Income Tax returns.  Therefore, we are unable to figure out if their annual income, as mentioned in the proposal forms, was indeed wrong or not. Similarly, it appears from the proposal forms that occupation of Ms Saswati Dey nee Das, Ms Shrabanti Das and Ms Soma Das was mentioned as service, service and self-employed, respectively; whereas, in the petition of complaints, their occupation is mentioned as house-wife.  Despite this, we have not come across any specific averment in any of the petition of complaints that the names of companies/firm, as mentioned in the proposal forms, were all manufactured.

Overall, it is noticed that, Appellants’ have not put forth anything positive to aid their cause.  In absence of tangible proof to suggest otherwise, we cannot hold the Respondents guilty of deficiency in service.

In the light of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the impugned orders.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeals stand dismissed on contest against the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.