Ajay Lal Gupta,

s/o. Mishrilal Gupta,

residing at 51/1/A, Rabindra Sarani Magistate Bagan,

P.S. Liluah, District -Howrah,

PIN – 711204. And

311/6, Maulana Abul Kalam Ajad  Road,

14 Howrah Municipal Corporation, Golabari,

Howrah – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.The Manager,

    BNA Wealth Creators,

    Millenium City ( I.T. Park Building )

    Tower II, 6^th floor Salt Lake, Sector – 5,

    Kolkata – 91.

2.The Manager,

    Birla Sun Life Company Ltd.,

    35, 1^st floor, Vindhyachal,

    Abani  Dutta Road, Howrah,

    W.B. – 711101..----------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Mr. Ajay Lal Gupta,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps.  to refund an amount of Rs. 71,000/-, being the premium  amount of two insurance policies,  to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment along with litigation cost and other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant required an amount of Rs.

25,00,000/- as loan for which he approached O.P. no. 1 as per  the suggestion of one of its executives, namely Akash  Chowdhury. At the office of O.P. no. 1, complainant was given assurance of such loan amount on the condition of purchasing two insurance policies of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 vide Annexure I. On such assurance, complainant submitted two application forms with two cheques dated 30-06-2012 for purchasing two policies for an amount of Rs. 49,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- respectively vide Annexures II & III. Thereafter, complainant received two money receipts from O.P. nos. 2 & 3 vide Annexure IV collectively. Later on, he received two policy documents vide Annexure V. It is further stated by the complainant that as he was in urgent need of loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- for his daughter’s marriage, he arranged for the amount of Rs. 71,000/- for paying the first premiums of both the policies by way of availing a loan from his friend. So, for times without number, he contacted O.Ps to provide him his required amount of loan. But O.P. no. 1 did not pay any heed to his requests and lastly complainant asked O.P. no. 1 to return his premium amount of Rs. 71,000/- paid to O.P. nos. 2 & 3. But O.Ps. remained silent. Ultimately on 19-02-2013 complainant sent lawyer’s notice with the same request to all the O.Ps. Although they received that notice but did not take any step to refund his money. Finding no other alternative and being frustrated, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reiefs.

3.                  Notices were served upon the O.Ps.  O.p. no. 1 never appeared nor  filed any

written version but O.P. nos. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was  heard ex parte against O.P. no. 1.  

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            It is the specific plea

taken by O.P. nos. 2 & 3 that complainant, on his will, submitted two proposal forms for purchasing two policies on payment of Rs. 49,000/- and Rs. 21,000/-.And they also sent two policy documents to the complainant by July, 2012 which were duly received by the complainant. And in the policy document, there was an option like ‘Freelock period’ which was for 15 days and during that period complainant was at liberty to cancel those policies. But complainant did not opt for that option. After that, the policies continued upto the immediate next premium due date i.e., l3th June of 2013. And as per the policy document, last premium due date is on 30-06-2031. But as the complainant did not pay his second premium, both the policies became lapsed ones. And this is the ultimate contention of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 that under above circumstances complainant is not at all entitled to any refund. And it is also their specific plea that complainant simply purchased two policies and there was no such commitment of according any loan amount to the complainant. Here, we take a pose. Now-a-days, it is a very common experience of Consumer Fora when we get lots of complaints against insurance companies where their executives or representatives or agents make various kinds of misrepresentations while convincing people. It is also true that the condition like ‘Freelook period’ is not at all known to the common people. We find the name of Akash  Chowdhury is appearing in the Annexure IV under the column ‘Details of your BSLI representative’, which is  a document of O.P. nos. 2 & 3. So we are quite sure about it that the said Akash Chowdhury gave all misleading assurances to the complainant for which O.P. nos. 2 & 3 are only responsible as O.P. nos. 2 & 3 are the principal and Akash Chowdhury is their agent. So, it is the utmost duty of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 to educate and train up their agents in such a manner so that they can help the people by way of suggesting them to do the needful. Further to mention here that, by way of mortgaging insurance policies, some companies provide loan, too.  But it can never be in the very first year of the policy that should have been informed by the O.Ps. Receiving money in the form of premium from the people requires the O.Ps. to be more and more duty bound towards people. In this case in hand, O.Ps. failed to discharge their duty to the complainant. O.Ps. practised unfair means to dupe the complainant which is nothing but gross deficiency and should not be allowed to be perpetuated. But complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in providing service against O.P. no. 1. There is no document to show that complainant has paid any amount to O.P. no. 1. So, complainant is not at all a consumer of O.P. no. 1. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without cost against O.P. no. 1 and allowed with cost against O.P. nos. 2 & 3.

Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 122 of 2013 ( HDF 122  of 2013 )  be  dismissed exparte against O.P. no.1 without cost and allowed against O.P.nos. 2 & 3 with costs. 

      That the  O.P. nos. 2 & 3  are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That the O.P. nos. 2 & 3  are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual realization. .  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.