1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he is an SB accounts holder with OP.1 and to meet his urgency, the complainant approached the OP.1 for a Personal Loan of Rs.1, 50,000/- which was sanctioned and credited to his SB A/c No.31290704741 on 31.12.2014. It is submitted that the complainant found a debit entry of Rs.11, 000/- in his said SB A/c on 31.12.2014 and on approach to OP.1 the complainant could learn that during processing of the loan when he was made to sign on a number of papers/forms of the bank, his signature for opening SBI Life has been taken by OP.1 without his consent and knowledge. When he approached the OP.1 to get back the deducted premium of Rs.11, 000/- the complainant was advised to surrender the policy document with them within 15 days of its receipt but since the policy document was delivered to the wife of the complainant during his absence and his wife left for her maternal house soon after receipt of the same, the policy certificate could not be returned in time. It is further submitted that since the policy is a product of fraud, the complainant has personally met and submitted application to OP.1 for return of his money. As his request could not yield any result, the complainant has sent legal notice through his Advocate on 09.6.2015 to all the Ops and the OP.1 only replied to that notice on 10.6.2015 denying any fault on their part. The complainant submitted that the proposal form has not been filled up by him and his signature has been forged on the proposal form. Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops, to refund Rs.11, 000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.12.2014 and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that while obtaining loan from the bank, insurance is not mandatory but the borrowers are advised to take insurance to meet eventualities. The OP.1 denied the allegation of the complainant that they have taken number of signatures of the complainant on the plain forms/papers while advancing loan and likewise the OP also denied that the signatures of the complainant have been taken for opening insurance policy without his consent and knowledge. It is also contended that the documents of SBI Life are not blank since the said documents are being generated by the system with everything filled in. Regarding deduction of insurance premium it is contended that the complainant has given his consent by signing proposal form for deduction of premiums and hence the premiums are being deducted. The OP also further contended that in every policy, there is a free look period of 15 days and during that period the policy holder is at liberty to return the policy and by not returning the policy within the time given, the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 filed counter contending that on receipt of proposal under SBI Life Smart Money Back Gold Option-I Plan bearing No.1NQN883870 dt.31.12.2014 in the name of the complainant along with Rs.11, 000/- towards initial proposal deposit and basing upon the information furnished in the proposal form, they have issued policy bearing No.1N019793507 with DOC 09.1.2015 for a term of 12 years and the complainant has never raised any objection about the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents. It is further contended that the complainant has not returned the policy within free look period if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and hence refund of premium at this stage is not acceptable. Denying the allegation of the complainant that OP.1 has taken signatures for opening insurance policy without his consent and knowledge, the OP.3 pleaded no knowledge what has transpired between the complainant and Ops 1 & 2 but they have issued policy based on the details on the proposal form and it is contended that a person who signs a document is responsible for the contents of the same and he cannot plead ignorance of the same. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case personal loan of Rs.1.50 lacs sanctioned on 31.12.2014 in favour of the complainant and credited to his SB A/c No.31290704741 is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.11, 000/- has been debited from the said SB A/c of the complainant on 31.12.2014. The case of the complainant is that the OP.1 while processing the loan papers has taken a number of signatures on the blank forms of the bank and during that time the OP.1 has also taken the signatures of the complainant on the insurance proposal form without his consent and knowledge. According to the complainant, he met with OP.1 and was advised to return the policy bond within 15 days of its receipt but the complainant could not return within the time given since after receipt of policy bond by his wife, she left for her maternal house at Kendrapada and when she returned it has already been 22 days late. Thereafter, the complainant wrote to Ops to return his money but in vain. The Ops on the other hand denied the allegations of the complainant that without his consent and knowledge they have taken his signatures on the insurance papers. They further stated that within free look period, the complainant has not acted upon.
6. From the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge importance for consideration in order to come to a right conclusion. (1) Whether the OP.1 has taken signatures on the proposal form and SIEFT mandate on 31.12.2014 without the consent and knowledge of the complainant, (2) Whether any of the Ops adopted unfair trade practice in selling the insurance policy, (3) Whether any of the Ops committed deficiency in service and (4) if so as to what relief?
7. While deciding Issue No.1 it is seen that the OP.1 has sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.1.50 lacs in favour of the complainant on 31.12.2014 and the complainant has signed the loan agreement on that date. The complainant stated that the OP.1 has taken his signatures on a number of unfilled forms/ papers without his consent and knowledge and along with those papers; the OP.1 has taken signatures on the insurance papers. The complainant could know all those facts when he noticed debit entry of Rs.11, 000/- on 31.12.2014 and on enquiry with OP.1. The OP.1 stated that the allegations are not believable because the complainant is an educated Government employee and the loan and insurance documents are completely separate documents which cannot be tagged together. Further the OP.1 stated that the loan documents are not blank and unless the borrower gives his consent by signing the proposal form, the premiums cannot be deducted.
8. From the copy of loan documents which are available on record it is seen that the documents have been filled up by hand that to by OP.1. It is nowhere seen from the record that the agent of insurance has requested the complainant at any point of time to sell the policy and no agent/advisor was present at the time of signing proposal form but on the other hand the OP.1 at para-8 of his counter stated that loan and insurance papers are completely separate documents and cannot be tagged together. This contradictory statement of OP.1 creates doubt in our mind. Since the proposal forms have been filled up by OP.1 himself, it is clearly evident that the complainant has no knowledge about the type of insurance policy obtained and the premiums thereof besides period involved to the policy.
9. It is seen from the proposal form that Mrs. J. R. Chetty is the insurance agent in case of the policy taken by the complainant. The complainant stated that he is totally alien to the above insurance agent. The said allegation of the complainant has not been challenged anywhere by the Ops. Generally, the agent of Insurance Co. approaches the prospective proposer to sell a policy but in this case no agent has approached the complainant for a proposal. Further through an affidavit dt.05.11.2016 the complainant stated that his signature appearing on page-49 of 56 is put by him and it has been duplicated by OP.1. As per said allegation, we have gone through the said document and found that the signature on the said page is not matching with signatures put by the complainant on the other pages of proposal form. This irregularity is clearly visible to the naked eyes.
10. Further when a person is availing personal loan of Rs.1.50 lacs to meet his urgent needs he would have been motivated for one time insurance but in this case the premium is Rs.11, 000/- p.a. for long 12 years. Had the complainant aware about insurance or had any intention to take a policy from the Ops, he would have enhanced the quantum of his loan for the said purpose. So such a huge deduction might have affected his work for which purpose he had taken the loan from the OP.1. If the complainant is financially sound and is capable of giving 12 premiums, then why should he take loan from the OP.1 by paying huge interests etc. This arrangement of advancing loan and side by side selling insurance policy of huge premium and for long 12 years do not sound good. These activities clearly show that the OP.1 and Mrs. J. R. Chetty has chosen the easy method to catch the innocent borrower who has approached them for a loan at the time of his needs. If they are so interested to sell their product, they would have convinced the complainant to take one time insurance policy to cover up the loan offered by them. Further the complainant soon after his knowledge about debit entry has enquired with OP.1 and was advised to return the policy bond. In the above circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the signatures of the complainant have been taken in the proposal form without his consent and knowledge and the forms were filled up later on by OP.1 and the signature at page 49 of 56 of proposal form differs. Thus the Issue No.1 goes in favour of the complainant.
11. While deciding Issue No.2 regarding any unfair trade practice adopted by any of the Ops, it is seen that the complainant has never disputed the terms and conditions of the policy but he wanted to return the policy as he has no capacity to pay the premiums. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate our findings that the insurance proposal has been fraudulently obtained by OP.1 from the complainant. In this case, there is dispute regarding signature on the proposal form. No insurance agent has approached the complainant for the policy but in the proposal, the name of the insurance agent as Mrs. J. R. Chetty is appearing. Further after acquiring proposal form, the OP.1 has filled up the form with plan and premium which suits her has been given to the complainant. A sizeable premium has been collected at the time of initial proposal without taking the financial status of the complainant into consideration. Those are the glaring examples of unfair trade practice adopted by OP.1 for their personal gain. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
12. While deciding Issue No.3 it is seen that soon after receipt of debit message, the complainant had approached OP.1 and was advised to return the bond within 15 days of its receipt but the complainant failed to return the same for his personal problem. The policy bond was dispatched by OP.3 on 04.2.2015. No date of receipt of bond is forthcoming in this case. However, the complainant stated that when he approached the OP.2 with his application dt.11.3.2015 for refund of premium, already 22 days have been passed. Further it is seen from the record that the complainant has made allegation with OP.2 in written on 25.5.2015. Again the complainant has approached the Branch Manager, SBI Life at Jeypore through his application dt.05.6.2015 for cancellation of policy. As all his efforts became futile, he sent legal notice to all the Ops on 09.6.2015 urging refund of premium. This time OP.1 through his letter dt.10.6.2015 stated that as the complainant is an educated person, the contention that signatures on different papers have been obtained without his consent and knowledge cannot be acceptable. Thus continuous efforts of the complainant to get back his money did not yield any result due to such inactions of the OP.1.
13. Further it is seen that the complainant requested the OP.1 through his letter dt.06.1.2016 not to deduct further premium from his SB a/c. The OP.1 has acknowledged that request but on 09.1.2016 has allowed deduction of 2nd premium. Likewise 3rd installment has been deducted during January, 2017. When a customer requests his banker not to pay anything from his a/c to others, the banker is duty bound to oblige the advice of his customer but in this case in spite of written approach, the OP.1 allowed debit from the accounts of the complainant. In our opinion, by allowing debits from the accounts of the complainant in spite of his specific instruction not to deduct any premium from his accounts, the OP.1 committed serious deficiency in service. This issue also goes in favour of the complainant.
14. When all the issues went in favour of the complainant, it became absolute that the OP.1 has adopted unfair trade practice and also committed deficiency in service in this case. For such unfairness and deficient service, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.3000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice. Further the OP.1 is to be directed to pay interest on all 3 premiums at savings bank rate from the date of their respective debits till payment. However, the bank is at liberty to recover the above amount from the erring official on due process.
15. In this case, 3 premiums have been deposited with OP.3 and hence the complainant is entitled for the paid up value of the policy on surrender. As such the OP.3 is to be directed to close the policy and pay the paid up value of the policy with benefits to the complainant, if any.
16. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to pay interest at savings bank rate on the amount of 3 premiums from the date of their respective debits till payment and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant and he is at liberty to recover the above amount from the erring official on due process. The OP.3 is directed to pay the paid up value with benefits to the complainant treating the policy as surrendered. The above directions are to be complied by the parties within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the paid up value shall accrue interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.
(to dict.)
