(Passed this on 14th July, 2017)
Shri. S.P. Muley, President –
1. This is a complaint of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties (O.P.) in respect of investment of amount.
2. O.P.1 is Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and the O.P.2 is Canara HSBC Bank and Insurance Company. The complainant is in service in Japan. In the year 2008 when he had come to India he had approached the O.P.1 for investment purpose. The representative of O.P.1 told him to invest in mutual funds, assuring him of good returns after one year. For that, he was to make one time investment in which life insurance would also be covered. But the complainant said he was interested in only investment and not in insurance policy. He also said he would first invest for one year and after getting returns would think of further investment. He was told first year investment would be of Rs. 8 lakh which would give good returns and second year also he could invest same amount. The O.P.1 further told him that along with mutual fund he would get life insurance free of charge and no additional amount was required to be paid. Thus on such assurances he invested Rs. 8 lakh in mutual fund. Though he was not interested in life insurance, but as it was being given free of charges, he consented to said plan. He avoided to undergo medical test for insurance because in Japan he is required to go for medical test every year. But the O.P.1 compelled him to go for test. He opened NRI account and transferred Rs. 8 Lakh in that account on 29/11/2009.
3. He was asked to sign on several papers, but no copies were supplied to him. He was told that a welcome kit would be sent to his address in Japan. After a month he received the kit which surprisingly contained papers of O.P.2 insurance company. When he inspected his account it was noticed that from Rs.8 lakh, an amount of R. 2 lakh was debited towards life insurance premium and was transferred to the O.P.2 for insurance policy. Rest of the amount Rs. 6 lakh was shown invested. He tried to get explanation from the O.P.1 but without success. He also lodged complaint with HSBC but with no response. He informed the O.P.1 by e-mail that he did not need life insurance and entire amount was transferred to invest in mutual fund only. But no reply was given. Then the O.P.1 told him he had no option but to pay Rs. 8 lakh for another two years and get good returns. Since he had no option he transferred another amount of Rs. 8 lakh from his NRI account to get his policy revived. Meanwhile he was transferred to Thailand of which intimation was given to the O.P.1. He asked the OPs about facility of medical test available in Japan and Thailand. When he came to India he asked for medical test facility. But the OPs did not help him. As such there is deficiency in their service. Thereafter the O.P.2 returned Rs. 8 lakh by cheque to him in Thailand. But he did not encash it to avoid exchange charges and asked the OPs to deposit it in her mother account in India. But the O.P.1 did not do so, ultimately he encashed it in his name. He then asked the OPs to suggest a hospital for medical test as he was to visit India. But the OPs did not comply. Since his medical test could not be done, his life policy and investment came to be terminated. After termination of policy and investment the OPs were supposed to return his amount. But till date they have not returned Rs. 8 lakh. This is also deficiency in service and unfair practice, because of which he financially and mentally, suffered a lot. Since the OPs failed to compensate him, he has prayed to direct the OPs to refund his amount of Rs. 8 lakh with 24% interest from 25/11/2009 along with compensation for mental agony Rs. 1 lakh and cost Rs. 50,000/- . He has also claimed traveling expenses Rs 1 lakh as he was required to come from Japan to India many times.
4. The O.P.1 and 2 resisted the claim by filing separate reply. There is not much difference in their reply. It is stated the complainant has NRI account with it. In the year 2009 he wanted to invest and so various plans were suggested. According to his needs it was finally suggested to go for unit linked whole life plan of the O.P. 2. it is denied he was asked to invest in mutual funds on assurance that it would give good returns. It is also denied he was told that he would get life insurance free of charge with mutual fund and on such assurance he agreed to invest. The investment plan opted by the complainant requires mandatory medical test. It is admitted he opened NRI account and transferred Rs. 8 lakh in the said account. It is denied on assurance that the amount would be invested in mutual funds he signed on papers but copies were not given to him. He had an option to cancel the insurance policy when he allegedly came to know about inclusion of life insurance. But he did not cancel it and continued with it by paying premium. It is denied no hospital was suggested to him. It is denied there is deficiency in service or on false assurance he was made to invest and against his wish life insurance was given to him. Denying all other allegations, it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. We have heard Ld counsels for the parties and perused affidavit, notes of argument and documents. Upon consideration of the same we record our findings and reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
6. It appears from the averments made in the complaint that the complainant was not keen in purchasing an insurance policy, but he wanted to make one time investment to get good returns. With this intention he approached the O.P.1 with whom he has banking a/c since long. On the other hand, this story of the complainant of investment only without life insurance is strongly denied by the OPs. According to them the complainant had approached the O.P.1 for investment purpose and he was suggested various plans. According to his needs and intention a unit linked plan with life insurance of the O.P.2 was suggested. He was apprised of all the details of the plan and after his satisfaction and consent the said plan was finalized by him. Ld counsel for the complainant while arguing the case, however, submitted different story. From her argument it appears the complainant had taken life insurance plan on his own accord, but as he could not pay the premium the policy was lapsed. Therefore he wants proceeds of the lapsed policy, which is not given by the OPs.
7. Thus the only question which crops up is whether the complainant had taken life insurance plan or made simple investment without insurance plan. First it is important to note that the complainant is not a layman, he is serving in a company in Japan. So he is a literate person. His specific allegation in the complaint is that the insurance policy was sold to him against his wish and he was never interested in life insurance. He opened NRI a/c with O.P.1 and transferred Rs.8 lakh to this a/c for investment in a fund. When he received wel- come kit from O.P.1 he was surprised to know that out of Rs.8 lakh, Rs. 6 lakh was shown invested and Rs. 2 lakh was transferred into life insurance policy of O.P.2. He received the kit in November 2009. There is clear mention in the policy document that if he does not agree with terms and condition of the policy, he has an option to cancel the policy by returning the original policy, for which 15 days Free Look Period was given to him. He being a literate person was expected to go through the papers carefully and if he was not satisfied with the policy he could have cancelled it. But he did not do so. He has placed only one e-mail (document no.5) written by him to the O.P. on 22/9/2011 i.e. almost two years after receiving the wel come kit. In this e-mail he has not uttered a word that he was shocked on coming to know that instead of full investment some of his money was debited towards policy premium. Instead he continued with the said plan by paying next premium.
8. He has signed the proposal and declaration forms for the life insurance plan. He also signed on documents relating to portfolio of the plan in the year 2009. In the portfolio every details about the life insurance policy are given. He admits his signatures were taken on some papers but alleges, copies of the same were not given to him. It is hard to believe such statement from a literate person. We cannot accept that he blindly signed on papers without bothering to verify what the papers were about. Not only that, he had given standing instructions for life policy and authorized the O.P.2 to periodically debit his a/c for making payment to life insurance policy. Considering this overwhelming proof, it is very much clear that he consciously opted for equity fund with life insurance plan. Now he is estopped from making contrary statement.
9. As we said earlier, the complainant’s counsel has changed her stand while arguing the case. It is submitted by her that the insurance plan was taken by the complainant but since the premium was not paid the policy was lapsed. Proceeds of lapsed policy is therefore being claimed. A Circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority is placed before us to support the contention that the proceeds of lapsed policy shall be refunded to policy holder after the expiry of revival period. In case there is no demand from the policy holder for refund, insurance company shall refund the amount on its own by cheque / demand draft. It is contended the OPs did not act according to this Circular and adopted unfair trade practice. It is to be noted that this is not his original complaint, nor did he make claim for proceeds of lapsed policy. On the contrary, he, all along, alleged that the insurance policy was given to him against his wish and consent and he was never intended to purchase it. Now, this kind of different contention cannot be entertained.
10. It is not necessary to refer to the schedule of the policy, nor to its terms and conditions. These are not in dispute. The O.P.1 bank acted in the matter as a financial advisor; it is not the seller of the policy or mutual fund. Without his consent or permission the amount from his NRI a/c would not have been transferred to the O.P.2 towards premium. The O.P.2 had sent him reminder of next premium vide letter dated 29/10/2010. But he failed to pay and notice was sent to him on 2/12/2010. Since he again filed to pay the policy was lapsed. On 11/1/2011 a notice was sent to him advising him to get the policy revived after completion of all formalities. Copies of the letters and notice are placed on record. Thus, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has failed to establish his case. Therefore, we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of judgment be given to both the parties, free of cost.
