Tripura

West Tripura

CC/87/2016

Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director & CEO, AEGON Religare Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

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

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC- 87 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 & CEO,
AEGON Religare Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Building No.3, 3rd Floor, Unit No.1,
Nesco IT Park, Western Express Highway,
Goregaon(E), Mumbai- 400 063.    …..........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 Amritlal Saha,
                  Sri Kajal Nandi,
                  Sri Abheek Saha,
                  Advocates.    
                     
                             
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 24.04.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Dilip Kumar Chakraborty against the Managing Director and CEO, AEGON Religare Life Insurance Company Ltd. the fact of the case in short is that he purchased one policy from O.P. named AEGON Religare Educare Advantage Insurance Plan for a term of 16 years  with premium of Rs.29,895/- every year. Accordingly he paid the first premium. After few days he received the policy documents and saw that the signature in the proposal forms are not matching with the actual signature. The signature in the policy documents also not matching with his signature. He made contact with the agent and company and requested the company official to refund the installment amount. But it was not paid so this case filed. 
2.        O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the signature was given by the petitioner and there is mismatching. Therefore, O.P. prayed for disposal of the claim.
3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped for 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 photocopy of Proposal Form, other policy documents. 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. Signatures of Dilip Kumar Chakraborty 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.   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.            The policy is for a period of 16 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.  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.        
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.