BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.243 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.7.2014

Date of Decision :5.12.2014

Baljit Singh aged about 45 years son of Kartar Singh R/o H.No.407, Ward No.4, VPO Miani, Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Mr.Dhiraj Chopra, DLF, Life Insurance, 5th Floor, Konal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

3. DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

4. DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd, 4th Floor Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.CS Matharu Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Lalit Kakkar Adv., counsel for Ops No.2 to 4.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist and permanent resident of village Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The complainant was approached by employees of opposite parties and for the said purpose he was called at the office of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 had instigated the complainant to purchase policy in his name. It was conveyed to the complainant that he has to pay only once and he would be able to get better interest then the bank as the policy which was to be sold to the complainant is policy of single premium and after expiry of five years, on maturity he would be able to get double the amount so deposited by him. The complainant purchased one policy vide policy No.000272290 for an amount of Rs.90,000/- in his name. Thus, the complainant is a consumer covered within the definition of consumer as enshrined in Consumer Protection Act. To the utter dismay, the complainant was shocked to know that the policy issued to the complainant was for a period of 20 years and the premium paid by him was only for one year, whereas, while selling the policy, it was mis-stated regarding the fact of the policy being of single premium, therefore, the opposite party No.1 is guilty of mis-selling the policy to the complainant for the reason best known to him. The complainant immediately on coming to know about the fraud played upon him by the opposite parties, contacted the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and apprised them regarding the commitment made by them while selling the policy and further requested the opposite parties to cancel the policy and make good the refund of the premium paid by him. But the opposite parties failed to adhere to the genuine and lawful requirement of the complainant and flatly refused to cancel the policy and to refund the premium/amount paid by the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the payment of the above said police i.e Rs.80,000/- (Rs.90,000/-) to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 to 4 appeared and filed their written reply pleading that it is wrong that opposite parties instigated the complainant to purchase the insurance policy as alleged. It is denied that the opposite party had given assurance to the complainant that the said policy was single premium payment policy and that the complainant would be getting double the amount which is deposited by him as alleged. The complainant Baljit Singh after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance product "DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Plan" had voluntarily applied for the an insurance policy vide proposal form bearing No.AF 001417585 dated and signed on 23.10.2013. In the said proposal forum, the complainant had given all the relevant details and information in the prescribed form, for an assured sum amounting to Rs.7,67,425/- for which the amounting to Rs.90,000/- was proposed to be paid annually for the period of 20 years. It is pertinent to note that complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions which were duly explained to him, had signed the proposal forum. It is submitted that the complainant had voluntarily applied for the insurance policy and also issued cheques for making payment towards premium under the said policy. It is denied that the said policy was mis-sold and fraud has been committed on the complainant in issuing the said policy as alleged. The complainant also submitted various documents alongwith the application form which itself makes it evident that the the complainant after duly understanding terms and conditions, opted for the above policy. Thus based on the information and declaration contained in application and further believing the same to be true and upon receipt of the duly filled form alongwith the initial premium, the opposite parties have issued the policy bearing No.000272290 with the commencement dated 28.10.2013, the policy premium paying term was clearly mentioned as 20 years. Further, the opposite party on 26.10.2013 made pre-verification call to the complainant regarding policy No.000272290, on the given number as mentioned in the application form. In the said call, the complainant was contactable and he was clearly informed about (a) Policy holder name:Mr.Baljit Singh,(b) Term of the policy: 20 years(c) Mode of premium-annual, (d) Sum assured: 7,64,425/-, (e) Premium paying term: 20 years, alongwith next premium due date. It is submitted that upon the issuance of the said policy contract, the policy contract was dispatched to the complainant's address on 30.10.2010 through speedpost, AWB No.ED694219726IN and the same was delivered at the address provided in the proposal forms. It is submitted that in the instant case, the policy was issued on 28.10.2013 and the same was delivered to the complainant on address provided by the complainant on 8.11.2013. The complainant for the first time on 4.2.2014 contacted the opposite party for cancellation of the policy. It is submitted that the same was duly replied by the opposite party on dated 19.2.2014. It is submitted that thereafter the opposite party again on 12.3.2014 received a request for cancellation of the policy from the complainant and that the same was duly replied by the opposite party on dated 30.3.2014 vide which the complainant was informed that the request for cancellation of policy can not be accepted since the same is made outside the free look provision. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, opposite party 1 did not appear in-spite of service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C29 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 to 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for both the parties.

7. According to the own version of the complainant, he purchased one policy i.e policy No.000272290 for an amount of Rs.90,000/- in his name. This fact is pleaded in the para 2 of the complaint. Counsel for the complainant contended that at the time of filling proposal form, it was represented to the complainant that he has to pay premium only once and after expiry of 5 years i.e on maturity he would get double the amount deposited by him. He further contended that on receiving the policy issued to him it was found that the policy was for 20 years and premium was required to be paid for 20 years. He further contended that it is case of mis-selling of the policy in question. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 to 4 that the complainant voluntarily applied for the policy in question and after fully understanding all terms and conditions of the policy, signed the proposal form. He further contended that the policy was dispatched to the complainant on 30.10.2013 but the complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. Ex.C-1 is proposal form of policy in question and same is duly signed by the complainant. Where any person signs any document, presumption is that he has signed the same after fully understanding its contents unless it is shown that any misrepresentation of fraud was practiced upon him. In proposal form Ex.C-1 premium payment term of 20 years and coverage term of 20 years are specifically mentioned.

8. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd & Anr. Versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

9. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant to prove that any misrepresentation of fraud was practiced upon him. In the complaint, the complainant has admitted the receipt of the policy but he has intentionally not mentioned the date of receipt of the policy in question. It is not shown by the complainant if he ever applied for cancellation of the policy in question within free look period. The complainant has himself produced premium receipt Ex.C-17 wherein policy term of 20 years is mentioned. The complainant has failed to prove that the policy in question was mis-hold to him as alleged by him in the present complaint.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

5.12.2014 Member President