BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.161 of 2015

Date of Instt. 20.04.2015

Date of Decision :11.09.2015

Balbir Kaur aged about 47 years wife of Mohinder Singh R/o Village Hiyatpur Jattan, District SBS Nagar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. The Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd, Finance Department, 10th Floor, R-Tect Park, Nirlon Compound, Hub Mall, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400063 through its MD/Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. The Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd, First Floor, Midlaon Finance Centre, GT Road, Opp.Kings Hotel, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

3. The Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd, through its Branch Manager, Garhshankar, Near Civil Court, Hoshiarpur Road, Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Karan Kalia Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.BB Sekhri Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that in the month of March 2009 the authorized representative of opposite party No.1 met the complainant with a very attractive and lucrative schemes floated by opposite party No.1 and they succeeded in selling policy No.14298316 with product name "Super Invest Assure Plan" having advisor code 20160530 by making false and frivolous assertions to the complainant and the complainant bonafidely purchased the aforesaid policy believing the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy as correct. The complainant successively paid three installments of Rs.39,000/- each i.e Rs.1,17,000/- and the opposite party No.1 issued policy cover note and the said policy commenced from 31.3.2010 in the name of the complainant. At the time of purchasing the policy the opposite parties assured the complainant that there is a policy of opposite party for the period of five years and on maturity the complainant will receive double the amount of the said policy, alongwith other benefits and interest as maturity amount of the policy and as per the assurance and promises made by the opposite parties, the complainant signed some of the blank proposal form on three-four pages on asking of opposite parties and they asked the complainant that they will fill the form later on. In the month of September 2014 the complainant approached the opposite parties for the payment of the policy amount alongwith all the benefits which the opposite parties promised to pay. The complainant was astonished to know that the opposite parties informed that the complainant had to deposit 20 installments of Rs.39,000/- each, thereafter the complainant will be entitled to get the above said amount. At the time of policy given by the opposite parties to the complainant in the year 2009 no such information was given. Only it was told by the opposite parties that the complainant had to deposit three installments of Rs.39,000/- each. Thereafter the complainant asked the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.1,17,000/- which were deposited by her. The opposite party No.3 has submitted the account statement to the complainant that there was only balance of Rs.75,924/- due in her account. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 in the month of June 2014 came to the house of the complainant and got the signature of the complainant on blank form and assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,17,000/- will be returned to her in four installments. In the month of August 2014 the complainant received a new policy issued by the opposite parties dated 30.6.2014 with the plan 'Reliance Guarantee Money Back" in which the opposite parties deducted the amount of Rs.51,249.13/- as premium installments and the alleged policy is for 20 years and complainant has to pay installment 10 years. The opposite parties had played fraud with the complainant as, it has transpired that the signature of the complainant has been got forged on the proposal letter by the representative of the opposite parties. The complainant has never put the alleged signature on the said form and it has come in the knowledge that the period of the policy has been done for the 20 years. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 17.9.2014 that she does not want to continue with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the amount of Rs.1,17,000/- be refunded to her. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a cheque of Rs.24,675/- on 29.1.2015 of HDFC Bank and the same was got encashed by the complainant. After knowing about the said fraud, the complainant asked the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.92,325/- as deposited by her with them and as the opposite parties got filled the form by forging the signature of the complainant by extending the policy period from 5 years to 20 years. But till today the opposite parties have not paid the amount of Rs.92,325/- which was fraudulently and illegally received by them from the complainant inspite of the repeated demands made by her personally and lastly the opposite parties have refused to pay the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.92,325/- alongwith interest. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complainant has herself pleaded forgery, cheating & fraud took place which itself attracts that complainant is not a consumer as there was a allegation of fraud and cheating so she should approach civil court for redressal of her grievance. They further pleaded that the complainant obtained policy No.14298316 on his request after understanding the details thereof. It is wrong that replying opposite parties have given any assurance to complainant regarding double of amount after five years. It is wrong that the complainant singed on any blank paper, infact complainant had signed on proposal form No.A4756633 on 31.3.2009 and disclosed her annual income Rs.190000/- and payment mode annually alongwith other relevant details and understanding opted insurance plan of replying opposite parties. It is submitted that first written complaint was received on 17.9.2014 which is beyond stipulated free look period time. It is submitted that on the request of the complainant opposite parties provided the statement of her policy No.14298316. It is wrong that opposite parties went to the house of the complainant and got any signature of the complainant on blank forms contrary it was the complainant, admittedly, who walked in Garhshankar Branch with her husband in the month of June 2014 and after understanding the details of plans requested for fund transfer from policy No.14298316 to new application No.D8706189 on 16.6.2014. On the above mentioned request of the complainant a new policy bearing No.51681061 with following details have been issued:-

3. Further it is mentioned that policy No.14298316 was foreclosed on 31.3.2014 and the foreclosure amount was Rs.75924.59/- out of which Rs.51249.13/- as premium paid in new policy No.51681061 and the balance amount was dispatched to the complainant through HDFC Bank cheque No.58259 of amount of Rs.24675.46/- on dated 7.2.2015. It is further wrong that opposite parties assured any return of Rs.1,17,000/- in four installments. It is wrong that signature of the complainant was forged on the proposal letter. It is further mentioned that first request for policy cancellation was received on 17.9.2014 which is beyond stipulated free look period of 15 days from the receipt of policy bond. It is submitted that complainant has concealed this fact that an acknowledgment was given to her on receipt of letter dated 17.9.2014 supported by copy of her Adhaar Card No.690823637607 by Garhshankar Branch of the opposite parties. Further, complainant also concealed these facts that reply to the letter dated 17.9.2014 was also given by opposite parties on 19.9.2014. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW/A/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

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

7. The complainant obtained first policy in the year 2009 and paid three installments of Rs.39,000/- each i.e Rs.1,17,000/- in all. According to the complainant, at the time of issuing the policy, the representative of the opposite party insurance company has assured her that she will receive double the amount alongwith other benefits after five years. Further according to the complainant, she signed on blank proposal form on three-four pages on asking of opposite parties and in the month of September 2014 she approached the opposite parties for the payment of the policy amount which the opposite party insurance company promised to pay. Further according to the complainant, she was astonished to know that the opposite parties informed her that she had to deposit 20 installments of Rs.39,000/- each and thereafter she will be entitled to the above said amount and thereafter she asked to opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.1,17,000/- which were deposited by her. Further according to the complainant, the opposite party No.3 has supplied the account statement and that there was only balance of Rs.75,924/- in her account. Counsel for the complainant contended that officials of the opposite party insurance company came to the house of the complainant in June 2014 and obtained her signature on some blank forms with the assurance that amount of Rs.1,17,000/- would be returned to her in four installments but in the month of August 2014, she received a new policy issued by the opposite parties dated 30.6.2014 in which the opposite parties have deducted the amount of Rs.51,249.13/- as premium payment and the alleged policy was for 20 years and complainant was required to make payment for 10 years. Counsel for the complainant contended that the signature of the complainant on the proposal form relating to the fresh policy have been forged by the representative of the opposite parties and infact the complainant never singed the said proposal form. Counsel for the complainant also contended that opposite parties have also issued a cheque of Rs.24,675/- on 29.1.2015 and the same was got encashed by her and thereafter learning about the fraud committed by the opposite parties, she asked to the opposite parties to return the remaining amount of Rs.92,325/- as the opposite parties have filled the proposal form by forging her signatures. Ex.OP3 is first policy and Ex.OP2 is second policy dated 30.6.2014. The proposal form is attached with the policy Ex.OP2. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has never signed this proposal form or any other document relating to this policy and the representative of the opposite parties has forged her signature in order to issue the above said fresh policy dated 30.6.2014. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant signed the proposal form after fully understanding its contents and it is totally wrong that her signatures have been forged by any representative of the opposite party insurance company. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. No doubt the Consumer Fora are competent to decide the complicated question of facts or forgery but for deciding the forgery detailed evidence including examination and cross examination of witnesses and further evidence of the handwriting expert is required. So, on the basis of evidence led by the complainant or opposite parties, the question of forgery can not be effectively decided in the present summary proceedings and in our opinion, appropriate forum is civil court.

8. For the arguments sake, if the version of the complainant is accepted that she never obtained the second policy dated 30.6.2014 and she is entitled to Rs.1,17,000/- paid by her under the first policy of March 2009, out of Rs.1,17,000/-, the complainant has already received Rs.24,675/- and she is asking for return of the remaining amount i.e Rs.92325/-. So it means that the case of the complainant is based on the first policy dated 31.3.2009 Ex.OP3. From the perusal of the policy Ex.OP3 and documents attached with it, it is crystal clear that the above said policy Ex.OP3 was unit linked policy and as such complainant can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. On the first page of the policy Ex.OP3 it is mentioned as under:-

"In the event, you are in disagreement with the terms and conditions of this plan, you may wish to opt out of this plan, by stating the reasons of your disagreement and return the policy document to the company within 15 days of its receipt, for cancellation. In which event, the company will refund an amount equal to the non allocated premium plus the charges levied by cancellation of units plus the fund value as on date of cancellation subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period of cover less expenses incurred by the company in your medical examination, if any and stamp duty charges".

9. So, the above contents in the policy document clearly suggest that policy obtained by complainant was unit linked policy. In the policy document funds names are also mentioned. In the proposal form, the column of plan and fund options (Allocation %) are mentioned and in the column of plan name "Reliance Super Invest Assure Plan" is mentioned and fund option 50% in infrastructure fund and 50% in energy fund are mentioned. Further in the policy documents which are attached "Reliance Super Invest Assure Plan Unit Linked Policy" is also mentioned. On the last page of the policy document against maturity benefit total fund value is mentioned. So from the perusal of the policy documents dated 31.3.2009 Ex.OP3, it is evident that this policy obtained by complainant was unit linked policy. The funds in unit linked policy are invested in equity market which is speculative in nature. In Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2014 by our own Hon'ble State Commission, it has been held as under:-

"At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and, as such, the claim made thereunder is not cognizable by the Foras under the Act. In support of his submission he cited III(2013) CPJ 203 (NC) (Ram Lal Aggaarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr). Learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the following observations:-

"The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal".

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon'ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party".

10. To the same effect is the law laid down by our Hon'ble State Commission in Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.407 of 2011, decided on 22.9.2014.

11. The ratio of above cited authorities is applicable on the facts of the present case. So the complainant having obtained unit linked policy can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and on this score also she is liable to relegated to civil court.

12. In view of above discussion, the complainant is relegated to civil court and present complaint is 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 Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

11.09.2015 Member Member President