DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Avtar Singh Parmar s/o Late Sh. Tulsa Singh, resident of H.No. 2606, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1]   Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Managing Director, One India Bulls Centre Tower No.1, 15^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013.

2]   Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 149-150, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The instant complaint relates to allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by wrong selling of policies by the representatives of the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.

          The Complainant has stated that he had a number of policies with different insurance companies (details at Annexure C-1) due to which one Sh. Punit Bansal approached him with a suggestion that the Complainant could take refund of all old policies over the past 03 years, along with accrual benefits, without any deductions and purchase new policies of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant thus made enquiries about the refund process by telephone. One Mr. Alok Mittal had assured him that the amount in Columns 8 of policies of 03 years old at Annexure C-1 would be credited to his SBI A/c within 45 days and those with lesser tenure within 60 days.

          As the Complainant was in dire need of money due to serious illness of his wife, he agreed to the offer and also invested a sum of Rs.90,000/- by taking a loan against FDR on 12.12.2011 for the one time investment opted for and agreed to by the said person. According to the Complainant, the loan is still outstanding along with interest. The Complainant has alleged that two Cheques bearing Nos. 243454 and 243455 dated 12.12.2011 for Rs.45,000/- each along with two letters addressed to the concerned insurance companies for surrender of policies, bank statement, copies of senior citizens cards along with application for opening new account with Birla Sun Life Insurance was got signed from the Complainant and collected by one Mr. Pankaj on 14.12.2011. The Complainant has further stated that after 04 days one Mr. Punit Bansal again contacted him that the amount of Rs.90,000/- is not sufficient for refund, so he was asked to open an account for at least Rs.45,000/- more. Keeping in view the refund amount involved, the Complainant gave the said money. However, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, he received two Birla Sun Life Insurance Policies bearing No. 005269066 and 005280702 for Rs.90,000/- and Rs.45,000/-, having a term of 18 years issued by the Opposite Parties, which were delivered to him on 26.12.2011 and 31.12.2011 respectively. However, no refund amount of old policies detailed in Annexure C-1 was received.  

          The Complainant has stated that he visited the Chandigarh Branch of the OP-Insurance Company in the first week of Jan., 2012, and asked the staff for an application form for cancellation of policy, within the free look period. The application form was not provided. Thereafter, the Complainant has also tried to contact the persons, who had induced him to purchase the policies, but could not do so. Meanwhile, the person, who had induced him to purchase the policies called him on phone and explained that the deposited amount would be converted into one time investment after six months.

          The Complainant thereafter, made a complaint by e-mail to the Customer Care Service on 10.03.2012 and IRDA on 11.03.2012, requesting for cancellation of policies and refund of the amount paid. But when his grievance was not redressed, the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, copies of which were also sent to the IRDA and the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh Office (Details Annexure C-10 to C-14). In response to his complaint, the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh advised the Complainant vide letter dated 9.4.2012 to make a written representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer, BSLI. The Complainant accordingly made a detailed representation on 18.4.2012 (Annexure C-16). However, BSLI in reply has denied the facts and allegations made by the Complainant and emphasized the terms of the policies completely ignoring the facts and circumstances leading to the mis-selling of policies by the Agents (Annexure C-18). The Complainant has also sent a rejoinder to the reply, but no reply has been received.

          The Complainant has thus filed this complaint alleging cheating and deficiency in service, besides unfair trade practice and illegality. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the principal amount of Rs.1.35 lacs along with interest and compensation, besides costs of litigation.  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          The Opposite Parties in their joint reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Lalit Vermani, have denied all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint, in the preliminary objections. It has also been stated that the Complainant has not impleaded Mr. Punit Bansal, Mr. Alok Mittal and Mr. Pankaj as parties to the complaint, against whom allegations have been made in the complaint. Opposite Parties have further submitted that they had received two applications for the life insurance of the Complainant as per application/ proposal form dated 02.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 (Ex.R-2 & R-3). The proposals were accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the Complainant/ life assured and consequently two policies were issued (Policies C-8 & C-9). Opposite Parties have further submitted that the Complainant is a practicing Advocate having a number of life insurance policies from different insurance companies (details Annexure C-1) and hence, cannot be presumed to be unaware of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy or the procedure for return of policy within the free look period of fifteen days. The allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties avoid to provide the application form for cancellation of policy has also been denied.

          The Opposite Parties have also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Limited V/s Agarwal Steel (2010) 1 SCC 83, wherein it was held as under: -

“In our opinion, 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”.

          Opposite Parties have also relied on other judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission to prove their stance that the Complainant was well aware of the papers that he was signing and the policy being issued to him. Opposite Parties have also stated that the allegations with regard to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have not been co-related with facts and incidents to prove the same.       

          On merits, Opposite Parties have taken similar objections, as above, and have prayed that the allegations of the Complainant are false, frivolous and vexatious. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.          The Complainant also filed rejoinder by way of affidavit to the reply wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted. The Complainant reiterated that the applications were got signed blank from him on the false promise of refund of amount of old policies. Also, both the policies for Rs.90,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively were received contrary to the proposal accepted. The Complainant has once again prayed for refund of the entire amount along with interest and compensation.

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the Complainant in person and ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have perused the record.

7.          The grievance of the Complainant is with regard to mis-selling of two policies by the representatives of the Opposite Parties by giving him false promise of refund of his old 13 policies, details of which are at Annexure C-1. Allegedly duped by these persons, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- for two policies, which according to him were single payment premium, but are actually issued for a period of 18 years. The proposal form has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties, as well as by the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that he has not filled up the proposal form and the applications were got signed blank from him on the false promise of refund of amount of old policies. To our mind, the Complainant does not seem to be a novice as far as applying for and purchasing insurance policies is concerned; looking at the number of policies already in his possession details of which are at Annexure C-1. Hence, saying that the Opposite Parties have duped him into giving signatures on a blank proposal form would be his own fault and not attributable to any fraud, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties.

8.          It is relevant to add here that the declaration at the end of the policy form has been signed by the Complainant/ life assured and one Smt. Sheetal Parmar.The agent/ broker is one Mr. Devinder Kumar and not any of the Mr. Punit Bansal, Mr. Alok Mittal and Mr. Pankaj who have been named in the complaint as representatives of the Opposite Parties. Once the Complainant has signed the declaration about knowledge of the contents of the form, the allegations made by him about term of policy or the contents contained therein, to our mind are unbelievable. The Complainant has also filed complaints before the Insurance Ombudsman, IRDA and issued notices to the Opposite Parties. 

9.          From the documents placed on record, it is also evident that the Complainant has failed to approach the Opposite Parties with a written request for cancellation of the policies within the free look period, which is the requirement for refund of the amount paid by him. In the absence of any reliable evidence seeking refund, the Opposite Parties, to our mind, are not bound to entertain any request by the Complainant for refund of the amount paid. Also, as stated by the Opposite Parties, no specific allegations regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practice have been substantiated in the Complainant. 

10.        Hence, finding no merit in the complaint. We dismiss it with no order as to costs.

11.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th January, 2013.                                                 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”