Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/129/2024

MRS NEELAM SOBTI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIRECTOR RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANJIT KUMAR

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/129/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/130/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/131/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

 [4]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/132/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 [5]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/133/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[6]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/134/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2024
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2024

Mrs.Neelam Sobti wife of Sh.Ajay Sobti r/o H.No.8, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana -132001.

… Complainant

                                        V E R S U S         

1.     The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055.

2.     The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17, SCO No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kartik Parmod Goyal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. The complainants in the above complaints have sought the relief of refund of amount and compensation etc. As such, during arguments, it was agreed upon by the parties that captioned consumer complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
2. For the sake of brevity, relevant details, necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaints i.e. Policy No., premium amount as admitted by the OPs, date of payment etc., in respect of each consumer complaint, are tabulated as under:-

S. No.	C.C. No.	Policy No.	Admitted Premium amount by the OPs.	Receipt Annexure
	CC/129/2024	53417404	8,00,000/-	C-1
	CC/130/2024	53415875	12,00,000/-	C-1
	CC/131/2024	53693466	20,00,000/-	C-1
	CC/132/2024	53432083	30,00,000/-	C-1
	CC/133/2024	53471204	8,00,000/-	C-1
	CC/134/2024	53810144	12,00,000/-	C-1

3. To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2024-Neelam Sobti Vs. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance  Company Pvt. Ltd. & Another.
4. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had gone to her bank i.e. PNB Bank, Chandigarh for some personal work and upgradation of account where the agents of the OPs had allured her to invest money in the scheme known as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance (Annexure C-1) for a period of three years to yield high profits.   On the said assurances, the agents of the OPs collected the premium amount from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant did not bother about the said investment as she had full faith in the officials of the OPs  as her account was with the bank.  Since the complainant was in need of money after three years, therefore, she approached the OPs  to refund the amount but she was shocked to know that the aforesaid money has been foreclosed and no amount was payable to her. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OPs to refund the maturity amount but the same has not been refunded despite her repeated requests. In this manner, OPs have mis-sold the subject policy by misrepresenting the facts to the complainant just to grab money, knowing fully well that the complainant was a senior citizen even at the time of issuance of the subject policy and she could not have waited for such a long period for the amount which was invested by her under the impression that the same will be refunded to her after three years. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
5. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, limitation and also that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. However, it is stated that based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the LA/policy holder, the OPs issued the policy along with the terms and conditions governing the policy and a welcome letter. The details of the same are reproduced as under:-

In fact, the policy holder/LA had signed the declaration and authorization contained in the e-proposal form.  It is further stated that the complainant had paid premiums under the policy meaning thereby that she has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that the subject policy was mis-sold to the complainant.   It is further alleged that in fact, the complainant is backing out from the terms and conditions of the subject policy by concealing material facts from this Commission.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.

6. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
7. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid the premium amounts to the OPs, which were acknowledged by them vide three different premium receipts (Annexure C-1), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have mis-sold the subject policy to the complainant by assuring the complainant that the aforesaid amount shall be invested in the shape of FDRs for three years and on maturity, the maturity amount shall be refunded to her  and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant has paid the aforesaid amount as installments in the shape of premium to the OPs and had further agreed to pay the same for 7 years with policy term of 12 years and the consumer complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of the premium receipts (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹8,00,000/- which was duly acknowledged by the OPs and said fact has not been disputed by the OPs in their written version.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that at that time the complainant was a senior citizen. As the said fact was in the knowledge of the OPs that the complainant was a senior citizen as well as more than 60 years of age, it was not possible for any prudent person to wait for the maturity amount for further 12 years, especially when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was a senior citizen and it was otherwise also not possible for her to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/- as annual premium for 7 long years. 
   3. Pertinently, the complainant in the other connected consumer complaints is the same and as such, it is not possible for the complainant/policyholder to pay such a huge amount in the shape of annual premiums to the OPs for such a long period towards different policies.
   4. No doubt, OPs have pleaded that as per the letter dated 18.02.2019 annexed with the policy document, if the complainant was not satisfied, she could have opted out of the policy, within 15 days of its receipt, as per the free look provision provided therein, however, since the OPs have failed to prove on record the receipt of the said letter by the complainant, no reliance can be placed on the same.
   5. It is worth mentioning here that Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers.  The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, III (1993)CPJ 7(SC) held as under :-

“To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, 'to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers'. Use of the word 'protection' furnishes key to the minds of makers of the act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.”

6. In view of the foregoing, it stands proved on record that the complainant has paid the aforesaid amount to the OPs and the said evidence led by the complainant has not been rebutted by the OPs with any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant had purchased the subject policy with free volition, rather it appears that the agents of the OPs have misrepresented the facts to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant had paid a huge amount. Hence, the OPs are certainly proved to have mis-sold the subject policy and thereby indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints succeed and the same are hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under, in each consumer complaint :-

1. to refund the entire premium amount to the complainant (as depicted in column No.(4) of the table in para No.2 above), alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.   A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of that file.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

30.08.2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member