Tripura

West Tripura

CC/86/2016

Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. R.Dutta, Mr.R.Das.

04 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC- 86 of  2016

Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty,
S/O- Lt. Prabir Kumar Chakraborty,
Old Kalibari Lane, Near Skylark Club,
Krishnanagar, Agartala, 
West Tripura.                .........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

The Managing Director,
Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Edelweiss House, Off CST Road, Kalina,
Mumbai- 400 098.            …..........Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the complainants    : Sri Ratan Datta,
                  Sri Rupak Das,
                  Advocates.
                     
For the O.Ps             : Sri Dip Datta Choudhury,
                  Sri Sikandar Jamatia,
                  Advocates.
                         

                             
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 04.04.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by one Dilip Kumar Chakraborty U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that after retirement being attracted by the advertisement in good faith he purchased the policy from the O.P. Insurance company in the name of his minor daughter, Sudipta Chakraborty and paid premium Rs.23,900/- in cash. But after receipt of the policy found with surprise that signature in the policy documents are not given by him. It is not matching with the actual signature which he put in the policy documents. His wife also purchased one policy from the Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd. and dispute arises in that case also for the false signature. Complainant informed dissatisfaction and also given Legal notice. But O.P. Insurance company did not take step for refund of the premium amount Rs.23,900/-. Petitioner therefore, filed this case for redress. 

2.        O.P. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd. appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and condition of the policy filled up the proposal form and signed it. Complainant has given a declaration stating that the contents of the proposal was read over and explained to him. He claimed for refund of the amount without any cause. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up determination ;
        (I)Whether there was any mismatch in the signature of the petitioner in the policy documents?
        (II)Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get back the amount paid?

4.        Petitioner produced the Proposal Form, correspondence letter, original Policy Documents, Legal Notice also produced the statement of affidavit of Dilip Kumar Chakraborty.

5.        O.P. produced no oral or documentary evidence. 
        
6.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points;
            
            Findings and decisions:
7.        We have gone through the policy documents. 2 signatures of Dilip Kumar Chakrbaorty is found in the policy documents as a proposer. The contention is that the signature is not given by him. We have gone through the Proposal Form. The signature in the proposal form is also found similar to some extent. Dilip Kumar Chakraborty also signed in the Aadhaar Card and the statement of bank account. Similarity also found to some extent. The contention that it was mismatched not proved by any scientific evidence. If it is found mismatched then insurance company should take step for matching it and issue a new policy certificate containing the signature of Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, proposer. There was 'Free Look Provision' in the policy. Free Look period is 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy for reviewing the terms and condition of the policy. If the policy holder disagree with the policy terms and conditions he has the option to return the policy with written reasons for objection and they would refund the amount. Admittedly such objection is not given within 15 days of receipt of the policy during the 'Free look period'. So, as per terms and conditions there is no provision for refund.

8.        Dilip Kumar Chakraborty in his evidence stated that he purchased the policy for his minor daughter aged 12 years. The policy is for a period of 15 years. His objection is about the signature given by him not about any terms and conditions. He stated that his signature had been forged or artificially inserted in the proposal form and it is serious offence. Same thing was done in respect of the policy of his wife. That forgery is not proved by any cogent evidence as stated by the complainant. As Free look period is over petitioner is not entitled to get back the premium amount paid. No deficiency of service is found in this regard. However, we direct the O.P. insurance company to take step for taking the signature of the petitioner and issue the policy documents afresh with the original signature. The O.P. insurance company failed to take notice of this objection and as a result petitioner was harassed and for that harassment some deficiency of service is found. Insurance company should take notice of it and issue the certificate to the satisfaction of the petitioner as that step is not taken so some deficiency of service is found. We therefore, direct the O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner and also issue new policy certificate matching the signature of the petitioner. Both the points are decided accordingly.
        
9.         In view of our above findings this case is partly allowed. We direct the O.P. to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5000/- to the petitioner and issue policy certificate matching the signature of the petitioner.        
                      

                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.