DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
D.F. Case No.130/2011
Date of filing24.08.2011 Date of disposal:25.09.2013
Complainant:Aditya Kumar Trivedi, R/o.Nilanchal Apartment(A-3), Apcar Garden, G.T.Road, P.O.-Asansol-713304 P.S.-Asansol (South), Dist.-Burdwan.
VERSUS
Opposite Party: 1 (a). The Chief Executive Officer/Country Manager, Bajaj Allienz Life
Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office & H.O.-GE Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerawada, Pune (Maharastra).
(b). The Executive Officer, Bajaj Allienz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., At-
Murgasole, G.T. Road (East), Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan.
2. Manager/Head of Kolkata office, Bajaj Allienz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Macmet House, 4th floor, 10B, O.C. Ganguly Sarani, Kolkata-700 020.
3. The Chairman/Managing Director, Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Regd.
Office-23-25 M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai.
Present: Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Durga Sankar Das
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Pradeep Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 (a) (b) & 2: Ld. Advocate, Manikeswar Ghosh
Appeared for the Opposite Party 3: Ld. Advocate, Sanyuk Banerjee.
JUDGEMENT
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows.
The complainant Mr. A.K.Tribedi have a Savings Bank Account in Standard Chartered Bank, Kolkata-01 since 2004 and one Sri Ripan Bhattacharjee of that bank asked the complainant to contact him over phone. The complainant met Sri Ripan Bhattarcharjee while he apprised him about some investment scheme and at his influence he purchased one policy for Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.5.2004 with Bajaj Auto Ltd., Bali Company Ltd. The policy was described as flexible, unlapsable and its annual mode of premium is optional. At his constant persuasion he purchased the following policy.
All the occasions were done by the said Ripan Bhattacharjee while Mrs.Paveli Paul, agent of Bali Company was present. The complainant subsequently received policy documents from the head office and found that he is further to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in next two years which was compulsory but beyond his capacity. The complainant then tried to meet Mr. Ripan Bhattarcharjee and told him regarding the said policy’s terms and conditions. Mr. Ripan Bhattacharjee then told him that he knows nothing about his purchase of policy as the policy proposal has come from head office and Mr. Bhattarcharjee, however, assured him that he would take up the matter with head office when four years were over but no information was received. The complainant subsequently met one Kousik Dutta, Sales Manager of Bajaj Allianz Company and it was subsequently referred to Grievance Redressal Officer, Pune. The complainant also requested Mr. Dutta to convert the policy in single premium and not to cancel the same.
In the mean time Rs.1,00,000/- was withdrawn by Standard Chartered Bank from the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner and was paid to Bali Company Ltd. as second premium in policy No.0005424848 without permission of the complainant. This is an act of deficiency in service and violation of RBI Guideline by Standard Chartered Bank.
The complainant subsequently met Sanjay Uppadhyay of Bali Company and one Mr.Sanjay Rama of Bali Company and subsequently with Mr. Dipanjan Bhattarcharjee of Standard Chartered Bank but nothing was fruitful. In fact, Bali Company Ltd. sold his four policies in mere five months to the said petitioner by misleading and misguiding the complainant. As per guideline of IRDA higher premium policy should be sold to any customer after a duration of one year and six months at least. Thus, Mr. Ripan Bhattarcharjee acted an over act. The complainant subsequently reported to office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Kolkata when it was observed that ‘the complainant of mis-selling and forgery are beyond the scope of RPG Rules 1998 and this Forum is unable to give any decision on the complaint. The complainant may approach any other forum for suitable action in this regard’. The cause of action arose on 2.11.2010 when Hon’ble office of the Insurance Ombudsman ordered/suggested to the petitioner to submit his claim before a competent authority. The complainant claims relief as under;
- All the premium amount i.e. Rs.4.5 lacs be returned to the said petitioner by the Bali Company Ltd.
- A bank compound interest at the rate of 10% be paid on Rs.4.5 lacs from the date of deposit as the said contract is void from the date of deposit as the said contract is void from the date of signature.
- A compensation and damages amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by paid by the Bali Co. Ltd., to the said petitioner as petitioner suffered of great agony, anxiety and grief. Thus, the total claim amount of this petitioner stands at Rs.12,00,000/-.
O.P. No.1 (a) (b) & 2 have contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alial all the material allegations as leveled against them. The O.P.s have further stated that on scrutiny of proposal form and verifying the same if there are ambiguity in the proposal form the same is informed to the proposer who has to comply the same failing which the Insurance Company has got the right to reject the proposal form and to refund the amount of premium to the proposer. More over, the policy holder in the company are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company which is issued by the company. If after getting the policy bond if anything found in the contrary with the understanding of the proposal or not acceptable to the policy holder he or she can apply for the cancellation of the policy within 15 days from getting the policy bond which is called FREE LOOK PERIOD and in that case the Insurance Company refund the premium deducting some part as applicable. This is as per the guideline of the IRDA Authority. In this case also the same policy was followed. But complainant did not apply for the FREE LOOK cancellation for the policy, evidencing his acceptance of the policy terms and conditions and accordingly the policy were issued and taken into accepted by policy holder. More over, once the period of limitation were expired any action or steps initiated by the complainant before any authority for redressal of his grievance by itself cannot extend the period of limitation under the provision of law. The matter already became time barred on and from 3.10.2007 i.e. two years from 3.10.2005 when the complainant sent an application to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the Insurance Company the matter will be more clear from the list of dates mentioned below;
1. 20.5.2004 to 7.9.2009- purchase of four insurance policies.
2. 3.10.2005 letter issued to Grievance Redressal Officer.
3.20.12.2008 letter to Territory Manager of Insurance Company.
4. No date and representations before Insurance Ombudsman.
5. 10.11.2010 Insurance Ombudsman dismissed the complaint.
6. September, 2011 the instant complaint filed.
Hence, it is clear that under the provision of Section24A of the Act, this complaint is became already time barred on and from 3.10.2007 i.e. two years from 3.10.2005 and hence is in admissible. The complainant has stated in Paragraph-20 that cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 10.11.2010 when the Hon’ble Office of the Insurance Ombudsman ordered/suggested to the petitioner to submit his complaint before a competent authority. The O.P. submits in this respect that cause of action actually arose in the year 2004 but in order to create a false ground for limitation the complainant stated 10.11.2010 as date of cause of action which is evidently wrong and accordingly there is no laches on the part of the O.P.s.
O.P. No.3 in his written version has denied the allegation. The O.P. No.3 has further stated that they do not carry anything business in the territory jurisdiction of this Forum as per provision of section11(2)(b) of the act either prior permission of the Ld. Forum of the acquiescence of the O.P.s who do not carry on business within territory jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum is mandatory. It appears that the complainant has failed to neglect to comply with the above said provisions. Further the cause of action either whole or in part arose completely and undisputedly within the territory boundary of the city of Kolkata, which is obviously beyond the territory jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. More over from cause of action point of view it is also time barred and accordingly the case is liable to be dismissed on the of O.P. No.3.
Points for consideration in this case are;
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by the O.P.s?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this case?
DECISION WITH REASONS
On going through the statement of both the parties and the complaints it is learnt that the complainant made four number of policies amounting to Rs.3.5 lacs from O.P. No.1(a) (b) & 2 respectively in the year 2004. It is alleged that by provocation of one Ripan Bhattacharjee of Standard Chartered Bank i.e. O.P. No.3 he made the above policies without going through the details of the policies and after receipt of the policy bond he came to know the details of the policies that the said policies were flexible, unlapseable & optional mode the complainant knocked from door to door of the Insurance Company and Standard Chartered Bank but there was no result. The complainant during this running period from door to door also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to one Mr. Uppadhyay of Bali Company which was also not deposited to the account of the petitioner. From written version of O.P. No.1(a)(b) & 2 it is seen that there is a FREE LOOK PERIOD in the policy bond of 15 days in which the complainant would put objection regarding policy condition and may apply for cancellation of policy which the complainant did not do and accordingly the policy conditions were binding to the complainant. In fact the complainant with a view to gain more profit and by illegal way were impressed by one Ripon Bhattacharjee which is not under the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and accordingly the O.P.s are not liable for their any laches. Further O.P. No.3 i.e. Standard Chartered Bank is not under the coverage of territory jurisdiction of this Forum as per Section 11(2)(b) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as its office is at Kolkata. Accordingly the case fails. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act is dismissed on contest against the O.P. without any cost.
(Sri Durga Sankar Das)
Dictated and corrected by me. Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Sri Durga Sankar Das)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Mrs. Silpi Majumder)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
