STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1]     Poonam Bishnoi w/o Sh.Saurabh Bishnoi,

2]     Sh.Saurabh Bishnoi son of late Sh.Surinder Bishnoi,

Both residents of H.No.751-B, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh

….…Appellants/Complainants

V E R S U S

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.45, Pocket-1, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh

.…..Respondent/Opposite Party  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:   

Appellant No.1 in person and on behalf of appellant No.2.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it  dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants (now appellants).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants purchased two insurance policies from the Opposite Party bearing Nos.0109463523 & 0162874290 by paying premium of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/- respectively, as single/one time premium. It was stated that later on, the Opposite Party, asked the complainants, to pay regular premium against the said Policies. It was further stated that the amount of the complainants had not been invested in a proper manner, and the Policies issued were not in accordance with the terms & conditions, as detailed by the representative of the Opposite Party. Ultimately,  the complainants made a request to the Opposite Party, seeking refund of the entire amount, whereupon it sent a cheque of Rs.13,283/-, dated 9.11.2011 against the investment of  Rs.75,000/-.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party stated that the complainants were issued “New Unit Gain” plan for a sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs & Rs.2.50 lacs, respectively, for a term of 20 years and the premium was to be paid yearly. It was further stated that  the Policies, in question, were issued to the complainants, as proposed by them, vide their proposal forms Ann.R-1 & R-2 respectively.  It was further stated that, as complainant No.1, never made any effort to get her policy revived, during the revival period of 2 years, hence her contract of Policy stood terminated and the payment of Rs.13,283/- was made to her. It was further stated that similarly, complainant No.2 also failed to revive his policy within the revival period, so his contract of policy also stood terminated and nothing was found payable to him.  It was further stated that if the complainants were not satisfied with the terms & conditions of the policies, for any reason, as alleged, they could have availed of the free look period option, for cancellation of the same, but they did not do so. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing complainant No.1, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Party and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

7.                    We have heard appellant No.1, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The appellants/complainants, assailed the order of the District Forum solely, on the ground, that the Insurance Policies, in question, obtained by them, were single premium policies, but the Opposite Party, by cheating them issued the annual premium policies and, thus, they (complainants) were not liable to pay further premiums.   It was further submitted that the complainants were not under an obligation to pay any amount, if their signatures were obtained, by way of mis-representation.  It was further submitted that the District Forum without appreciating the evidence, on record, dismissed the complaint. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.             In so far as the allegations, regarding cheating/fraud are concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated upon under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the proceedings before the Consumer Foras are summary in nature. Such allegations are required to be proved by leading elaborate evidence before the Civil Court. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006(2)CPC668(SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I(1998)CPJ13, a case decided by  a Bench of four Members of the National Consumer Commission and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank 111(1992)CPJ 50, a case decided by three Member Bench of  the National Commission it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.   Hence, the submission of the complainants, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

10.           It is evident from Annexures R-1 & R-2 i.e. proposal forms, duly signed by the complainants that they filled up and signed the same for obtaining the Unit Linked Policies.  Under these policies, the frequency of premium, as mentioned, in the proposal forms at Sr.No.5, was Annual. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum was correct, in holding, that the complainants were signatories  to the said proposal forms and received the insurance policies & other documents and, thus, they could not, at this later stage, wriggle out of those terms & conditions, which they had already accepted. The complainants have failed to place, on record, any document/letter  ever written to the Opposite Party, to prove that they were not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies, supplied to them.  Even otherwise, the complainants themselves failed to pay the premiums of the policies due on 28.10.2009 onwards and 10.07.2009 onwards respectively. Further, the complainants did not make any effort to get their policies revived, within the revival period of two years, from the date of first unpaid premiums, and, thus, the polices, in question, stood terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the same. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that the Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

8.                    The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

9.                    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld

10.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                              Sd/-

16.07.2012                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                    Sd/-                                             

[NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg