BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.241 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.07.2014

Date of Decision :13.01.2015

Kuldeep Kaur aged about 61 years wife of Kartar Singh R/o H.No.407, Ward no.4, VPO Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, Birla Sunlife Insurance Company, City Square Building, 2nd Floor, Near Kesar Petrol Pump, Jalandhar.

2. Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, Regd.Office One Indianbulls, Centre Tower-1, 15&16 Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.CS Matharu Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KS Minhas Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a house wife and permanent resident of village Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The complainant was approached by the employees of opposite party No.1 and they have instigated the complainant to purchase policy in her name. It was conveyed to the complainant that she has to pay only once and she would be able to get better interest then the bank as the policy which was to be sold to the complainant, is policy of single premium and after expiry of five years, on maturity she would be able to get double the amount so deposited by her. The employees of opposite parties have received Rs.30,000/- for policy No.005211580 from the complainant. But no policy was handed over to the complainant and again on the persistent enquiry by the complainant, after visiting the office of opposite party No.1 regarding non issuance of her policy certificate, it was again conveyed to the complainant that she had to pay Rs.30,000/- more to get the policy certificate as the policy regarding which the premium of Rs.30,000/- was paid by her and opted was against two equal installments to be paid and only then she was liable to get double the amount as agreed and advised by the opposite party No.2. Taking the said words of opposite party No.1, the complainant again deposited Rs.30,000/- with opposite parties with a hope that on maturity after 5 years she would be able to get Rs.1,20,000/- i.e double the amount deposited by her. Moreover, in the policy certificate issued by the opposite parties, the address given of the complainant is also wrong, whereas, the complainant is resident of village Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and the address given in the policy certificate shows the complainant as resident of village Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, District Jalandhar and similarly in the policy the name is written as Kaldip Kaur whereas her name is Kuldeep Kaur. While selling the policy, it was mis-stated regarding the fact of the policy being of single premium, therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of mis-selling the policy to the complainant for the reason best known to it. The complainant immediately on coming to know about the fraud played upon her by the opposite parties, contacted the opposite party No.1 and apprised him regarding the commitment made by him while selling the policy and further requested the opposite parties to cancel the policy and make good the refund of the premium paid by her. But the opposite parties failed to adhere to the genuine and lawful requirement of the complainant and flatly refused to cancel the policy and to refund the premium/amount paid by the complainant. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay her Rs.60,000/- the amount paid by her towards the policy. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction etc. They further pleaded that the complainant had admittedly submitted duly filled up and signed proposal for insurance. Details of the said policy are hereunder:-

3. On the basis of information and declarations provided in the said application form, the premium and as per underwriting rules/guidelines of the company the proposal was accepted by the company at standard rates and the policy was issued. The complainant had also signed a sales illustration after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy from which it is clear that the complainant very well knew about all the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant and the same were duly received at the address of the complainant. The complainant retained the policy document and did not approach the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, benefits, foreclosure, surrender and the policy terms and conditions, neither did she approach the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period thereby implying that she had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy. Further no such assurance was given by any employee of the opposite party company nor the company authorizes anyone to give such an assurance. It is further submitted that in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that she had paid another amount of Rs.30,000/-, the said contention is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the opposite party company has only received one premium of Rs.30,000/- and thereafter as no premium was received, hence the policy lapsed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP/2 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was represented by employees of the opposite parties that she would have to pay single premium and after expiry of 5 years on maturity she would be able to get double the amount so deposited by her. He further contended that on the said assurance, complainant paid Rs.30,000/- towards the policy in question. He further contended that when the complainant did not receive any policy certificate, she visited the office of opposite party No.1 and it was told to her that she had to pay Rs.30,000/- more to get the policy certificate as the policy opted by her was for two equal premiums and on payment of second premium she would be able to get double the amount. He further contended that complainant again deposited Rs.30,000/- with opposite parties with the hope that on maturity after 5 years she would be able to get Rs.1,20,000/-. He further contended that it is case of mis-selling. He further contended that in the policy, the name and address of the complainant is not correctly mentioned. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for opposite parties that complainant after fully understanding the terms and condition of the policy signed the proposal form and she very well knew about the term of the policy. He further contended that complainant after receiving the policy document never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period. He further contended that complainant has paid only one premium and she has concocted the story mentioned in the complaint. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. In para 3 of the complaint, complainant has pleaded that in the policy certificate issued by opposite parties, the address given of the complainant is also wrong and further in the policy, her name is written as Kaldip Kaur where as her name is Kuldeep Kaur. So these pleading of the complainant clearly proves that the policy was received by her. It is not shown by the complainant if after receiving the policy document, she ever applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period meaning thereby that she was agreeable to the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has produced first premium receipt Ex.C1 and in this first premium receipt itself BSLI "Bachat Money Back Plan-Term 20 Pay 20" is mentioned. Alongwith the first premium receipt the complainant has produced policy details wherein premium paying mode is mentioned as Annual and last premium due date is mentioned as 22.11.2030. Further in this document installment premium due on 22 of every November is also mentioned. So these facts falsify the version of the complainant that she was represented that policy would be single premium policy. The complainant has not produced payment receipt of Rs.30,000/- for the second time as alleged by her in the complaint. Ex.OP1 is proposal form which is duly signed by the complainant. On the proposal form payment term of 20 years and pay term of 20 years are specifically mentioned. In the proposal form, the name of the complainant is mentioned as Kaldip Kaur. She has also singed as Kaldip Kaur. In the proposal form, the complainant has mentioned the address for communication as that of District Jalandhar. Where any person signs any document, the presumption is that he or she has signed the same after fully understanding its contents.

8. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd & Anr. Versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

9. In the present case, the complainant has failed to show if her signatures were obtained on the proposal form under any undue influence or fraud or misrepresentation. In case any misrepresentation or fraud has been practiced upon her at the time of selling the policy, she would be applied for cancellation of the policy on receipt of policy document within free look period but she never did so. The complainant has failed to prove her case by leading any cogent and reliable evidence.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.01.2015 Member President