DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 89 of 2021

 

Sri Ruhidas Pal,

S/O. Lt. Dhirendra Chandra Paul,

R/O.-C/O. Basu Deb Paul, 

Jagaharimura, Near Netaji Sishu Siksha Kendra,

P.O.-College Tilla, P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala…........................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Store Manager,

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co.

Nagerjala, Near Bank of Maharashtra,

Near Bordowali Petrol Pump,

P.O.-A. D. Nagar, P.S.-A. D. Nagar,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799003.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co.

2nd Floor, Holding No.-602, N/602J, T. G. Road,

Ramnagar Road No.1, Ker Chowmuhani,

P.O.-Ramnagar, P.S.-Ramnagar,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799002. 

 

3. The Manager,

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Unit Nos.401B, 402, 403 & 404, 

4th Floor, Inspire-BKC, G Block, 

BKC Main Road, 

Bandra Kurla Complex, 

Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.................................................................. Opposite Parties.

 

 

       __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Ankon Tilak Paul,

  Sri Sourayadeep Dey,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps.    : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Smt. Rinku Shil,

  Advocates. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 22/07/2022.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Ruhidas Pal, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 29/02/2021, when the Complainant was returning home after filing petrol for his scooter from one petrol pump situated at Durgabari, Agartala, one of the employees of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. working at Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co., Nagerjala approached that the Complainant is entitled to receive attractive offers from Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. The said employee of the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. who approached the Complainant was an employee of the O.P. No.1. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 01/03/2021, some employees of the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co., Nagerjala called the Complainant and requested the Complainant time and again to visit their office situated at Nagerjala, Agartala. The Complainant, being an aged person, after receiving frequent calls from Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. headed towards the office of the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. where few employees of the O.Ps. informed the Complainant that, the Complainant is one of the luckiest customers who has won the lucky draw coupon contest and therefore the Complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1,950/- per month every year after one year of depositing the premium amount of Rs.12,000/- and as such the amount of Rs.1,950/- is equivalent to 'pensionary benefit' being wrongly interpreted by the employees of the O.Ps. that few lucky senior citizens selected out of the lucky draw coupon contest are eligible for the above mentioned offer. Thereafter, the employees of the O.Ps. asked the Complainant to submit and sign few papers provided by the O.Ps. and further the O.Ps. kept the bank A/C details bearing A/C No.10515930482 (SBI Bank) & A/C No.-30153945047 (SBI Bank) of the Complainant and the nominee of the Complainant respectively, PAN Card etc stating that such documents are very essential as the Complainant will enjoy the benefit of Rs.1,950/- every month in this pandemic situation. But, the Complainant was in deep shock when the Complainant received the policy insurance book hearing Rn Policy No.53887081 where it was highlighted that the period of the insurance policy is of 15 years and the Complainant needs to deposit Rs.12,000/- half yearly (after every 6 months) meaning thereby there was contradictory. The Complainant asked the employees of the O.Ps. regarding the concealment and suppressing of material facts regarding the insurance policy. Such concealment of the material facts and providing untrue information regarding the insurance policy bearing Rn Policy No.53887081 tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 05/08/2021 to the O.Ps. in their official addresses stating his grievances and also sought relief regarding the same but the said legal notice fell into deaf ears of the O.Ps. The Complainant had no alternative but to approach the Ld. Commission in order to sought relief against the grievances.

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.72,000/-(Rs.12,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.30,000/-)  as return the premium amount along with interest bearing Rn Policy No.53887081, deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  mental agony  from the O.Ps.  

Hence this case.     

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

        In the written statements the O.Ps. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. The O.Ps. in their written statements / written version stated that there is no cause of action in filing the instant complaint.  Moreover the answering O.Ps. vehemently denies, disputes and objects the claim of the Complainant. O.Ps. stated that the Complaint does not fall within the definition of a 'consumer dispute' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this O.Ps. nor any deficiency in services being established against this O.Ps. 

          It is also mentioned that in the complaint petition the Complainant failed to show any kind of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Mostly, O.Ps. denied the dispute and averred that the instant complaint is false and concocted and it is liable to be dismissed.                                                

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 2 documents comprising 12 sheets under a Firisti dated 07/09/2021. The documents are namely Copy of the e-mail sent by the Complainant and the reply of the e-mail by the O.P. & Copy of legal notice dated 05/08/2021.  On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. 

        On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Smt. Soma Deb, D/O. Parimal Deb Working as BSO with O.P. No.1 having its office at Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Holding No.602-N/602-J, Ramnagar Road No.1, Ker Chowmuhani was examined. The said witness has produced 4 documents comprising 27 sheets under a Firisti dated 24/12/2021. The Documents are namely Copy of Policy documents delivery confirmation, Copy of the proposal Forms & declaration Forms, Copy of Grievance letter dated 02/07/2021 and 05/07/2021 by Complainant & Copy of Response letter dated 09/07/2021. On identification the documents have been  marked  as Exhibit -A Series.   

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

        (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?                    

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :

          We have heard arguments of both sides.

    At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that on 29/02/2021 one employee of the O.P. approached the Complainant again and again to receive attractive offers from Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. and handed over the coupon / token to him. On 01/03/2021, some employees of the O.P. called the Complainant and requested the Complainant time and again to visit their office situated at Nagerjala, Agartala stating that the Complainant will be highly benefited as the Complainant belongs to senior citizen and he is a lucky customer and therefore he is entitled to receive various schemes of the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Being influenced by the offer given by the employee of the O.P. he agreed to sign those documents which placed before him concealing and suppressing material facts regarding the Insurance Policy. Subsequently Complainant came to know that he has been misleaded by the employee of the O.Ps. and he was forced to purchase a policy. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice dated 05/08/2021 to the O.Ps. in their official address stating his grievances but O.P. did not pay any heed and for that reason Complainant has came before this Commission for cancellation of the policy as well as refund of the premium amount of Rs.12,000/- along with interest and also compensation. 

            On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Sampad Choudhury appearing on behalf of the O.Ps. submitted that Complainant has failed to establish that fraud was committed upon him. Before signing the documents Complainant was explained vebadly about the terms and conditions of the policy and thereafter he put his signature on the proposal form. So question of suppressing material fact does not arise. Mr. Choudhury relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court i.e. “Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel,(2010) 1 SCC 83” wherein it was held that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. 

        Mr. Choudhury submits that the Complainant had approached the O.P. after lapse of more than 4 months from the date  of receiving the policy which is beyond Free Look Period. Mr. Choudhury further submits that this complaint is liable to be dismissed as Complainant has failed to prove any force or fraud committed by the O.Ps.            

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

           All the points are taken up together for decision.  

          On perusal of the complaint it is found that there is an allegation of fraud committed by the employee of the O.Ps. To prove the factum of fraud complainant simply adduced his oral testimony but he failed to adduce any corroborative evidence. 

         On the other hand we find that O.Ps. have exhibited series of documents including proposal forms, declaration forms. We find that Complainant has put his signature on the proposal form. It means that after having knowledge about the condition of the policy Complainant put his signature. 

    On appreciation of the another documents i.e. a letter addressed to the Complainant dated 09/07/2021 we found that the O.P. in the said letter mentioned that they received first request for cancellation on 02/07/2021 which is beyond Free Look Period of 15 days from the receipt of Policy documents and they stated that they can not comply with the request of the cancellation of the Policy. 

    We have considered the decision of the Apex Court which are  relied by the Counsel of the O.P. and we found that the decision of the Apex Court are squarely applicable in the instant case. We also find that the Complainant has failed to prove the factum of fraud.                                                   

7. In view of the above discussion made above we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove the factum of fraud as well as deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

  In the result complaint is liable to be dismissed. No costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

                    

  

        Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.