BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.242 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.7.2014

Date of Decision :5.12.2014

Kartar Singh aged about 69 years son of Lahna 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 policies 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 policies which were to be sold to the complainant are policies 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 two policies vide policy No.000279821 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and policy No.000280136 for an amount of Rs.1,00,062/- in his name. Thus, the complainant is a consumer covered within the definition of consumer as enshrined in Consumer Protection Act. However, the name of the person who's life was insured was Gurpreet Singh, grandson and Amarpreet Kasur daughter of the complainant. To the utter dismay, the complainant was shocked to know that the policies 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 policies, it was mis-stated regarding the fact of the policies being of single premium, therefore, the opposite party No.1 is guilty of mis-selling the policies 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 him while selling the policies and further requested the opposite parties to cancel the policies 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 policies 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 two policies i.e Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,062/- 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 respective insurance policies as alleged. It is denied that the opposite party had given assurance to the complainant that the said policies were single premium payment policies and that the complainant would be getting double the amount which is deposited by him as alleged. It is submitted that the complainant Kartar Singh after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance product "DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Plan" had voluntarily applied for the said insurance policies. It is submitted that the agent may have solicited the complainant to invest in the policies, however, any policy would be effected only at the sole discretion of the customer. In the instant case also, only pursuant to the agent apprising the complainant with the terms and conditions of the policies that the complainant deemed it fit to apply. It is submitted that based on the answers, statements, details of coverage opted, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the application forms duly executed by the complainant, the opposite party company had issued the policies of DLF Pramerica Dhan Suraksha Plan alongwith the terms and conditions governing the said policies and the welcome letters with respect to each such policies. The complainant had confirmed the above facts in the declarations made in the respective application forms. The complainant also submitted various documents viz, copy of birth certificate, voter ID, school certificate and telephone bill etc, alongwith the application forms which itself makes it evident that the complainant after duly understanding terms and conditions, opted for the above policies. It is also denied that the said policies were mis sold and fraud has been committed on the complainant in issuing the respective policies as alleged by complainant. It is submitted that the policies were issued in December 2013 and dispatched to the complainant on the address provided by complainant. However the complainant has never raised any dispute regarding the delivery of the policy documents. The complainant for the first time on 4.2.2014 contacted the opposite party for cancellation of the policies. 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 received a request for cancellation of the policy from the complainant on 21.3.2014 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 No.000280136 can not be accepted since the same is made outside the free look provision. It is submitted that on receipt of cancellation request it was found that the free look cancellation period had expired and the opposite party duly communicated the same to the complainant that the request can not be entertained as per policy terms and conditions. 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 two policies i.e policy No.000279821 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and policy No.000280136 for an amount of Rs.1,00,062/- 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 forms, 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 policies issued to him it was found that the policies were for 15 years and premium was required to be paid for 15 years. He further contended that it is case of mis-selling of the policies 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 policies in question and after fully understanding all terms and conditions of the policies, signed the proposal forms. He further contended that the policies were dispatched to the complainant on 17.12.2013 and 19.12.2013 but the complainant never applied for cancellation of the policies within free look period. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by counsels for both the parties. Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3 are proposal forms of both the policies in question and same were 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 15 years and coverage term of 15 years are specifically mentioned. Same is position in proposal form Ex.C-3.

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 that receipt of the policies but he has intentionally not mentioned the date of receipt of the policies in question. It is not shown by the complainant if he ever applied for cancellation of the policies in question within free look period. The complainant has himself produced premium receipt Ex.C-19 wherein policy term of 15 years is mentioned. The complainant has failed to prove that the policies in question were 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.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

5.12.2014 Member President