Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/145/2017

Kiran Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Mittal Adv.

01 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	145 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08.02.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	01.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Kiran Verma w/o Sh.Ashok Verma, R/o House No.1482, Sector 4, Panchkula.     

             …..Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.208-209, 2^nd Floor, A-Block, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

   ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

                               

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Rajan Mittal, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          As per the case, the complainant was approached by the an executive of Opposite Party namely Ankush Sharma for a policy for guaranteed benefit @10.75% per annum and as such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.63,000/- through cheque No.412119, dated 25.6.2014 of ICICI Bank in favour of Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. and in response documents mentioning redemption @10.75% per annum growth was delivered to the complainant. However, when the Opposite Party was approached, the officials of OP told that the said cover note is fake and not valid, as such, complainant made a complaint to the police. It is averred that during the investigation, it was found that forged signature of complainant/deponent has been placed on some documents to get the benefit of policy and used Pan Card of complainant/deponent having PAN No.ABJPV4152C, D.O.B. 28.5.1955 and ICICI Bank Account No.001301503831 and that particulars of place of birth, designation, duration of service, salary, phone number, husband name, son name and date of birth of son of complainant, does not match with the particular filled in policy application form.  It is also averred that though the cheque issued in favour of ICICI Bank (duly credited by the Opposite Party), bears the name of complainant as Kiran Verma, but despite that, the policy was issued in the name of Kiran Devi.  It is submitted that the complainant requested the Opposite Party for refund of amount, but to no effect.  Then the complainant sent legal notice, but to no avail.  Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the complainant did not take the policy through any agent of the Opposite Party Company, instead, she availed the service of an independent insurance broker namely M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Brokers Ltd., which has not been made a party in the present complaint.  It is stated that the policy holder had submitted a duly filled up and signed proposal form for insurance (Ann.R-1), and accordingly the policy No.501-2188164 was issued in favour of the complainant having annual/yearly premium.  It is also stated that the complainant did not return the policy within 15 days under the Free Look Period provisions if she was not satisfied with its feature or terms & conditions, which means that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms & conditions. It is further stated that the complainant did not pay subsequent premiums, despite reminders, as such the policy entered into a lapsed mode.  It is submitted that the complainant has alleged forgery, cheating, fabrication, mis-selling etc., and such averments require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken, which is not possible in a summary trial.  It is also submitted that the policy was issued in the year 2014 and the complainant has just woken up from her sleep and after a period of 3 years she has started making up stories, which are beyond the prudence of any sound mind. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegation, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of Opposite Party made in their reply

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The perusal of the record reveals that evidence put forth by the complainant on file is sufficient to hold that the complainant was duped of her money amounting to Rs.63,000/- by the Opposite Party.  It is evident on record that the particulars mentioned in the policy issued by the OP qua place of birth of the complainant, designation of the complainant, duration of her service, salary of the complainant, phone number of the complainant are in variance and even the name of son of the complainant has wrongly been entered in the policy details.  The complainant has also placed on record a letter addressed to the Opposite Party vide which it is disputed that the signature of the complainant has also been forged at three places in the proposal form.  Apart from that, even the name contained in the policy document is Kiran Devi whereas the complainant is Kiran Verma and the cheque NO.412119 issued is bearing the name of the complainant as Kiran Verma and even in the PAN Card it is Kiran Verma.  Moreover, the plan provided by the Opposite Party was never opted by the complainant and the plan so proposed by the complainant in the proposal form was never given to her. Further, the tenure of the policy also differs than proposed by the complainant. 

 

7]       Contrarily, the Opposite Party vide its reply denied any liability on its part and claimed that the policy in question has been processed through broker M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Brokers Ltd. and it being an individual identity is responsible for all the wrong committed in the proposal form as well as with the complainant.  This stand of the Opposite Party is not tenable.  The cheque issued by the complainant for an amount of Rs.63,000/- has admittedly been credited in the account of the Opposite Party Company. The policy in question has also been issued by the Opposite Party Company, which admittedly is not in consonance with the plan proposed by the complainant and the material particulars of the complainant as mentioned in the policy are in variance with the particulars supplied by her. Therefore, the policy in question is held to be vague and invalid. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party is writ large.

 

8]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is proved.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OP and the OP is directed as under:-

[a] To refund an amount Rs.63,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of issuance of the policy i.e. 26.6.2014 till realization;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant;

 

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

1^st February, 2018                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER