Dt. 26.06.2015

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

            The present appeal is directed against the order passed on 25.10.2013 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, in CC No. 114 of 2013 , whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest against the OPs .

          The Complainant’s case, in brief, was as follows:

          The Complainant, being an Advocate by profession , purchased one Flexi -Smart Policy covering the Complainant’s life risk for Rs. 5.4 lakh + premiums paid in case of death. After receipt of the policy book , the Complainant noticed that there was a benefit illustration form bearing his forged signatures . It was also noticed by the Complainant that the benefit illustration for SBI Flexi-Smart in page 32 of 32 was never shown to the Complainant. That appeared to be very uneconomical too. The Complainant tried to get satisfactory explanation from various offices of OP No.1 but in vain. He wrote a letter to OP No. 1 on 07.12.2012 for clarification as to the genuineness of the policy. On 31.01.2013, OP No.2 sent a letter intimating the Complainant that medical tests were done on the Complainant before issue of the policy , though, however, the Complainant denied such medical tests before issue of the policy. The Complainant believed that medical certificate produced by the OPs was false and fabricated. The Complainant apprehended that the policy would be defective in nature and payment of benefit at the time of maturity or death of the Complainant would be rejected on that ground. OP Nos. 1 & 2 tried to compel the Complainant to receive Rs. 1.65 lakh after spending 2.25 lakh on premium by forging the Complainant’s signature . Citing the lapses on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2 showing false chart and by forging his signatures to obtain a policy ,  the Complainant filed the complaint with a prayer for direction upon OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the insured amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- + Rs. 6,300/- together with a compensation of Rs.2 lakh for mental agony and harassment , apart from litigation costs.

          The complaint has been contested by filing W.V. by the OPs who denied all material allegations contending , inter alia, that the OPs, relying on the details noted in the proposal form , medical examination report, confirmation of the signature by the Complainant and upon utmost good faith issued the policy on 14.08.2012 for a period of 10 years. The OPs also sought for thorough investigation by competent authority to ascertain whether the documents are forged as alleged. Any deficiency in service being denied on the part of the OPs , the complaint was sought to be dismissed.

          Ld. Forum below after having perused the evidence on affidavit, questionnaire, reply and copies of certain documents observed that thorough investigation regarding alleged forgery or practice of fraud was required which can not be done by the Forum. Accordingly, the case was dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to move the Ld. Civil Court if law permits.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below the Complainant-turned-Appellant has come up before this Commission for setting aside the order of the Ld. Forum below with passing of such order as may deem fit.

          The Appellant himself argued in support of his appeal . It was submitted by him that the impugned order was passed merely on technical point of forgery which is only a part of the case. He referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. –vs- Srinivasan, as reported in 1 (2000) CPJ 19 SC, emphasizing that the interest of justice can not be defeated by rule of technicality. It was argued by him that the District Forum passed the impugned order without looking into the point that breach of contract was committed by the OPs while insisting on a medical examination from the insured after issue of the policy. The letter dated 31.07.2012 alleged to have been sent by the OPs was false and fabricated. It was also submitted that the Complainant was not allowed to argue verbally on the points submitted by him on 21.10.2013 and the direction of the Ld. Forum below for approaching a Civil Court was uncalled for and in appropriate. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

        Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the Appellant was 59 years old when he applied for taking the policy in question and accordingly he was asked to undergo medical examination / tests . The Appellant had signed the benefit illustration also. He was examined on 02.08.2012 and the Appellant was asked by a letter to confirm his signature in the medical examination form. The Appellant confirmed the signature by signing the requirement letter on 13.08.2012. Thereafter, the policy was issued on 14.08.2012. It was further argued that in the medical examination form there was a signature mismatch for which a letter was sent to the Appellant for his confirmation. The Appellant’s attention was centred on the allegation of forged signature and nothing else. In fact, the Appellant / Complainant never alleged about any deficiency in service other than the point of forged signature. He never took any step to prove his allegation . Ld. Advocate cited the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in CPJ 2014 (2) NCDRC 190 and CPJ 2014 (2) NCDRC 196 emphasizing that proceedings before National Commission are essentially summery in nature and as such, matter could not be examined by Consumer Forum, the appropriate Forum being Civil Court.

          The point before us for consideration is whether the impugned order has been passed with any illegality or jurisdictional error. 

          We have gone through the memorandum of appeal together with copies of the impugned order , the petition of complaint ,the W.V. filed by the OP Nos. 1 and 2  before the Ld. Forum below at other documents including the evidence filed by the Complainant, questionnaires / replies thereto and other documents. The case laws as submitted by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondents have also been perused.

          The LCR as called for has been consulted.

          From perusal of the impugned order , it appears that Ld. Forum below dealt with the matter in detail and took all relevant facts into consideration. It has been rightly observed  by the Ld. Forum below that the whole issue was based on the question of forged signatures and inspite of the same ,the Complainant /Appellant did not take any step to prove that his signatures were forged. Ld. Forum below also observed that thorough investigation regarding the alleged forgery or practice of fraud is required which can not be done by the Forum. Ld. Forum below opined that the remedy was lying before the Ld. Civil Court . The view taken by the Ld. Forum below is endorsed . Hence,

                                      Ordered

       that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

       Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Forum below along with the LCR.