Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/36/2015

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, YES Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Goel

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/36/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Chhajju Ram R/o Vill. Balahri Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1.   The Branch Manager, Yes Bank, SCO 151-152, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.   The Branch Manager, MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 4&5, IInd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Goel, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that on allurement of agent of Opposite Party No.1 the complainant gave Rs.25000 each to the agent of Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2007 for investing the same in the FDRs for the term of 5 years with Opposite Party No.1. The said agent of Opposite Party No.1 also took signatures of the complainant on blank papers. It has been alleged that when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2012 to get the matured amount of his two FDRs he was shocked to know that his money was not invested in the FDRs scheme but the same was invested in the insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2. It has been alleged that the said agent of the Opposite Parties committed fraud with the complainant for getting more commission.  The complainant moved an application before the Opposite Parties in April 2012 for refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest but they did not do so nor gave any reply. It has further been alleged that the complainant never invested his money in the insurance policy nor such paper was signed by him for the said purpose. It has further been submitted that the Opposite Parties wrongly invested his money in insurance policy without his consent. The complainant sent a legal notice dated annexure C-1 but to no effect. It has further been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable being barred by limitation. It has been pleaded that the agent of Opposite Party No.1 never approached the complainant for offering saving schemes. Rather the complainant approached to the answering Opposite Party and asked about the insurance plans being offered by the answering Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.1 told him that it is dealing in business of banking services only, however, it is also acting as agent of Opposite Party No.2 who is involved in the business of insurance policies. Accordingly Opposite Party No.1 showed a number of policies to the complainant being agent of Opposite Party No.2. the complainant had shown his interest in policy No.436484612 dated 25.05.2007 and 43392102 dated 29.05.2007 “Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan-Risk Element’ for the terms of 25 years and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash for two policies, which was paid by Opposite Party No.1 to Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 issued the said policies effective from 25.5.2007 to 25.5.2032 and 29.5.2007 to 29.5.2032 mentioning therein all the terms and conditions of the policy. It has further been stated that vide letter dated 1.4.2007 and 26.5.2007 the complainant was intimated that if he was not completely satisfied with policy he had the option to cancel it by returning the original policy with a written request to Opposite Party No.2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. But the complainant did not opt for cancellation of the policies during the said period. It has further been stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the answering Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant filled proposal form Annexure RW/1 and RW/3 at his own will and he was accordingly issued policy documents RW/2 and RW/4 namely Max Life Maker Unit linked investment plan-risk element-2 respectively. Even the complainant renewed the said polices in the year 2008 by paying renewal amount but thereafter did not make any further payment in both the policies, resultantly the policies lapsed. It has been denied that the complainant had requested the Opposite Party No.1 to issue FDRs in his name. It has further been stated that the complainant purchased the policies as per his own desire and, if he was not satisfied with the same he could have got cancelled the same within the free look period but he did not avail the said option.  It has further been stated that the renewal payment made by the complainant towards the policies, in question, proves that the complainant was well aware that these were insurance policies and not FDRs as there is no need to deposit renewal payment in FDRS. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

8.       It is observed that the Complainant has duly signed two proposal forms, on the basis of which Opposite Parties had issued two policies i.e. Max Life Maker Unit Linked Investment Plan – Risk Element 2. It is also observed that the Complainant has also paid renewal amount in the year 2008, and thereafter did not make any further payment towards both the policies. We fail to understand as to if the Complainant had invested the amount in fixed deposit, why did he pay the renewal premiums for both the plans in the next year.

 

9.      It is noteworthy that the Complainant on receipt of both the policies had a free look period of 15 days to raise any concern. But, the Complainant has failed to raise any objection during the free look period so provided.

 

10.      The Complainant in his Complaint has alleged that fraud was committed upon him. It is worth nothing that forgery, fraud and cheating require detailed evidence, production of documents and cross-examination of witnesses which are beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction of this Forum. Such questions can only be adjudicated in the Civil Court.  

 

11.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the Complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Needless to say, Complainant shall be at liberty to avail the other remedies available to him before any other appropriate Court/Forum.

 

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

 

Announced

30^th September, 2015                                 

Sd/- 

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER