DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Tarsem Lal Tagra s/o Sh.Ram Lal Tagra r/o House No.1670, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex, Chandigarh – 160047.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Kotak Mahindra Insurance Company through its Manager, SCO No.149-150, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2.       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited through its Managing Director, Kotak Infiniti, 7^th floor, Zone-4, Bldg. No.21, Infinity Park, Opp. Western Express Highway, Gen. A.K.Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY: Complainant in person.

                      Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.1.

                      OP No.2 exparte.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Tarsem Lal Tagra, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Kotak Mahindra Insurance Company & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he procured the following Kotak Life Insurance Policies through OP No.1 :-

i)                 Kotak Super Advantage               01957633

ii)                Kotak Super Advantage               02107886

Copies of the insurance policies are Annexure C-1 (Colly.). It has been alleged that the insurance agent had assured for good benefits in respect of two policies. The complainant went to OP No.1 and deposited the third installment of the insurance policy No.01957633 and enquired about the amount he would be getting after completion of third year but he was shocked to know that he would be getting full benefits in case the policy remains in operation for 20 years. In case the said policy is surrendered after three years, its first premium would not be considered for payment. The same position was told with regard to the second policy No.02107886.  It has been contended that the name of the life insured is Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra, son of the complainant, who is living separate from the complainant. The complainant contacted his son Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra and showed him both the policies in question and asked him to verify his signatures as life insured.  However, Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra denied to have signed any policy documents of Kotak as life insured. It has been alleged that OPs have forged the signatures of Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra  as life insured in the policy documents (policy No.02107886 & 01957633) without his consent and knowledge. Moreover, the personal details mentioned in the proposal forms were filled by the OPs themselves, which are wrong and incorrect. A copy of the bank specimen signatures of Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra, which is totally different, is annexed as Annexure C-2. The complainant sent a letter to OP No.2 on 14.4.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-3, alleging that he had been cheated by the insurance agent and moreover the signatures shown of the person as life insured have been forged and he requested it to cancel the said two policies and send the original policy documents for verification of signatures of life insured.  OP No.2 replied vide letter dated 23.4.2011 – Annexure C-4. The complainant also sent another letter dated 28.4.2012 – Annexure C-5 informing the OP No.2 that his concern was also for policy No.02107886. OP No.2 vide letter dated 4.5.2012 – Annexure C-6 informed that policy No.01957633 could not be cancelled as free look period had expired but it did not mention any point regarding sending of the documents of policy No. 01957633 and 2107886.  The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 29.5.2012 – Annexure C-8 to OP No.1 demanding the original policy documents for the verification but to no effect. The complainant has contended that the OPs have forged the signatures in the insurance policy and prepared false documents and indulged in unfair trade practice.  The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to produce the original documents ; that the said two policies (wrongly written in the complaint as three policies) be declared as invalid/cancelled on account of forged signature of life insured ; to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1 lac towards forgery, harassment, mental and physical agony along with litigation costs of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                OP No.2 did not appear despite service and it was proceeded exparte on 27.8.2012.

3.                OPs No.1 and 2 in their written reply (though OP No.2 is exparte but written reply was also filed on its behalf jointly) have pleaded that the allegations relating to fraud and forgery cannot be decided under the summary jurisdiction of this Forum.  It has been averred that the complainant himself placed on record the policy documents and is admitting his signatures thereto. After having executing the documents and signing the same in acceptance of the factum that the contents thereof are correct, the complainant now in order to avoid continuing the policy is raising the present issue. It has been stated that the OPs never indulged in any restrictive trade practice or unfair trade practice. It has been further stated that the complainant was also issued the policy schedule and key feature documents, which clearly explained the charges applicable on the policy and Right to Reconsider notice, in accordance with which, the complainant could cancel his policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents but the complainant did not exercise that option.  It has been averred that the claim is also barred by limitation. The policy holder was a well read person, who took the policy after being fully aware of all the terms and conditions and understanding the same and never raised any dispute thereof and he also paid three premiums and now he cannot be permitted to retract from the policy. It has been stated that the policy holder had made the investment by his own freewill without any sort of pressure, coercion or misrepresentation. The complainant is trying to use the mechanism of this Forum to commit the breach of terms and conditions of the agreement entered between him and the OPs. OPs have also produced the copies of proposal form, benefit table and correspondence exchanged – Annexure R-1 to R-3.

4.                In his rejoinder the complainant has pleaded that there is no complaint regarding fraud and forgery before this Forum and it is a case of wrong and deficiency in service.  It has been stated that life assured did not fill any proposal form nor paid any amount and the signatures and personal particulars are wrong, false and incorrect. It has been stated that Mr.Vijay Khurana, Agent was advised to get the signatures of life assured but he did not bother to get the same. A copy of the promises (hand written) made by the insurance agent – Annexure C-9 show that he assured the complainant that he would get full benefit after paying three premiums (Rs.40,000/- for three years written thrice by his own hand). It has been stated that the table shown in the policy is neither clear nor legible and the complainant depended only on the assurance of OP No.1.  

5.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments of the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and the learned Counsel for OP No.1.

7.                At the outset, it is significant to note that the complainant has specifically alleged in the various paras of the complaint that the OPs forged the signatures of Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra and his personal details in the proposal forms were also filled by them and the same are wrong and incorrect.  The complainant has also raised an allegation of cheating by the insurance agents in the complaint and alleged that they had prepared false documents. However, in the rejoinder and while addressing arguments, the complainant has contended that there is no complaint regarding fraud and forgery and the complaint is in respect of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. But we are not impressed with this contention because the complainant has time and again alleged in the complaint that the OPs forged the signatures of life insured in the insurance policies and prepared false documents. We feel that the allegations relating to fraud, forgery and cheating cannot be decided under the summary jurisdiction of this Forum. The questions involved in the complaint are complicated and complex and the complainant is required to seek his remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.  We are of the view that the factual position in this case is required to be established by documents, detailed scrutiny of the documents and supporting oral evidence. The questions involved in the complaint can be satisfactorily resolved by elaborate examination of the witnesses, their cross examination and a lot of documentary evidence, apart from comparison of the disputed signatures of Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra.

8.                Secondly, it is worth noting that the proposal forms of the two policies purchased by the complainant, copies of which are Annexure R-1 and R-2 clearly show that the complainant signed the declaration confirming that he was submitting the proposal form after having read and understanding the product features, benefits and risk factors, structure of charges, terms and conditions of the proposed plan as set forth in the related brochures. The copies of the proposal forms show the policies term to be 20 years and the frequency of premium to be half yearly/yearly of the two policies.  The complainant admittedly deposited the three installments of the insurance policies, therefore, now he cannot allege that he was shocked to know that he would be getting full benefits in case the policy remains in operation for 20 years.

9.                Thirdly, the complainant has himself produced the copies of the policies – Annexure C-1 (Colly.), which reveal that Kotak Super Advantage 01957633 was issued on 31.3.2010 and Kotak Super Advantage 02107886 was issued on 31.8.2010. In the covering letters, the complainant was given the option of returning the policies to the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipts of the policies but the complainant did not exercise that option, after receipt of the policies on 31.3.2010 and 31.8.2010 and sent a letter to OPs only on 14.4.2012 for refund of the amount of the said policies. We are of the opinion that when the complainant did not exercise the option of free look period and did not get the policies cancelled as per terms and conditions of the policy, now he cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policies and after making of the payment of three installments make a prayer for refund of the premium amount along with interest. On the basis of the evidence adduced, we are unable to draw any inference of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the issues involved the complaint resolved in the Civil Court.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.