Govind Sharma,

391/2, Tlkal Ghat Railways,

Quarter Howrah – 1,

West Bengal – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Managing Director,

            IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

            Oasis Complex, Kamala  City, P.B. Marg.,

            Lower Parel ( West ),

            Mumbai – 400013,

            Maharashtra.

2.         The Manager,

IDBI Fedral Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

317, 3^rd floor, Buty Building,

Rabindranath Tagore Road, Civil Lines,

Nagpur – 440001,

Maharshtra.

3.         The Manager,

IDBI Fedral Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

No. 2/1, Krishna Enclave ( 1^st  Floor ),

Bhajanlal Lohia Lane, Howrah,

West Bengal – 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.               The complainant namely Shri Gobinda Sharma  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to refund of Rs. 32,000/- being purchased of two numbers insurance policies together with compensation and litigation costs  along with other reliefs.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant deposited two cheques with the o.p. no. 1 of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- each and further deposited Rs. 6,000/- twice for opening a bank account which were subsequently converted into insurance policy without any prior notice. The o.ps.  returned  the cheque amount of Rs. 12,000/- after consultation but refused to return the balance amount of Rs. 32,000/- as demanded. Being aggrieved complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayer. 

3.               The o.ps. on the other submitted written version stated therein that the complainant deposited the cheques for obtaining insurance policy and not for opening a bank account. However, the  request of the complainant for cancellation of the policies could not be acceded as the same was made beyond the 15 days free look in period i.e., provided to the insured for rectifying or cancelling the policies for which  deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the o.ps. as the complainant failed to make out a primafacie  case against the o.ps. as such  the complaint as made by the complainant be dismissed with costs.  

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 and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted  that the complainant deposited two number cheques of Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 12,000/- and further two number cheques of  Rs. 6,000/- each for opening a bank account to the o.ps. but on the contrary o.ps. utilized / converted the same amount against insurance policy.

6.               The point of dispute is that the o.ps. without prior consent of the complainant converted the deposited amount in numbers of policy.  He registered his complaint which  yielded no result. But  subsequently the o.ps. refunded only Rs.12,000/-. The balance amount of  Rs. 32,000/- is  yet to be  returned by the o.ps. to the complainant.  

7.               The complainant is a lay man. He signed the proposal form under compelling circumstances. Had it been within his prior knowledge he would not have accepted the said policy. He deposited number of cheques for opening his new account at the o.ps.’ bank. The complainant was not interested for obtaining the insurance policy from the o.ps. So he claimed  refund of his entire amount so deposited, the o.ps.  subsequently refunded  only Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant without taking any positive action towards refunding the balance  Rs. 32,000/- deposited in the first instance to the o.ps.

8.               In this particular case the o.ps. by adopting such unfair trade practice have been creating mental and physical agony to the complainant who has become a victim of circumstances and by such unfair trade practice the o.ps. or his representative utilized his deposited amount to convert in the insurance policy.

9.               Accordingly we accepted the claim of the complainant as justified and legitimate. Accordingly we find that by converting the deposited amount of  Rs. 32,000/- to the insurance policy o.ps. have adopted unfair trade practice; such action of the o.ps. is arbitrary and whimsical.

10.           Accordingly we hold o.ps. to be deficient in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  The points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 267  of 2013 ( HDF 267 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte  without cost against the rest.

      The O.Ps. jointly and severally  be directed to refund the deposited amount of  Rs. 32,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till full 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.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.