FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Author: SHRI RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The Complainants stated that they hadpurchased policy bonds vide Policy Nos. 000369472, 000378032, and 000386171 issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. DHFL PRARMARICA LIFE INSURNACE CO. LTD. The Signature of the Complainant at the proposalform of the lifeinsurance in all places in the application of the said policy bond and counter signature, benefit illustration joint declaration form self-attestation signature on all KYC documents are forged by the authorised agent of DHFL PRAMARICA LIFE INSURANCECO. LTD. Be it mentioned that this is criminal offence also against the contract law by which the policy has been sold. The Complainants have already submitted the copy of Pan Card as his Signature proof for reference.

The Complainants also stated that after receiving the policy Bonds the Complainants have mentioned discrepancies and also asked the authorised agent of DHFL PRARMARICA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. They came to complaints’ house on 17.06.2017 and took away the original policy bond for free look and cancellation due to this abovementioned forgery issues and provided them a written acknowledgement as a proof of receiving original policy bonds free look cancellation within the free look period on behalf of DHFL PRARMARICA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. It is pertinent to mention that the statutory period is 15 days from the receipt of the policy Bonds. The Policy bond wasreturned on 10.07.2017 by a doc-boy without doing anything and deliberately killed the free look period given by the company. This problem was created intentionally by the agent of the company.

In the statement of Complainants’, they stated that this is the allegation of the Complainants to cancel the above mentioned policy and  returnedthem their hard earned money amounting to Rs. 67,000/- to Rajesh Sinha Roy i.e. Complainant NO. 1 and Rs. 41,400/- to Ranu Sinha Roy i.e. Complainant No. 2 with statutory interest as on today, as early as possible because the Complainants do not want to continue the forged policy further.

The Complainants averred that the cause of action of the suit arose on 17.06.2017 when the agent of the respondents came to the house of the Complainant and also threatened with the consequences which is within the jurisdiction of your Honor’s Court.After that an Advocate letter was sent on 26.08.2017 to the Head Grievance Redressal Office, DHFL Pharma Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and it was duly received on 06.09.2017 by the competent authority of the said concern. Postal receipt and postal track report attached.

The Complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 1,08,400/- with statutory interest and also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

No Written Version has been filed by the Opposite Parties.

Points for Discussion

1) Whether the Complainants are Consumers under the O.Ps.;

2) Whether the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering service to the Complainants;

3) Whether the complainants deserve relief.

Decision with Reasons

1) It appears from Order no. 4 dated 19.06.2018 and Order no. 6 dated 30.07.2018 that representative of the O.Ps. was present and sought time for filing voka and time was granted for equity and justice. But ultimately the O.Ps. did not file any Written Version as revealed from Order no. 7 dated 03.08.2018 and the case ran exparte against the O.Ps. So, there cannot be any plea for the O.Ps. that they did not get any notice from the Forum.

2) It is a settled Principle of Law that when a party in spite of getting opportunity to file its own version but does not do so, it remains on the default side and the leverageof such default goes to the other Party (here the Complainants). So, all the allegations leveled by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties remained unchallenged. We may, therefore, presume that the allegations are true and the Opposite Parties had no point to controvert the same. The Complainants should get the fruit of such inability, negligence and reluctance of the O.Ps. to contest the case.

3)The dispute concerns the points of forgery of signature, incorporation of wrong personal data including and Mis-selling of thepolices by the Agent (Policies Nos. 000369472, 000378032 of Rs. 67000/- in favour of Rajesh Sinha Roy, Policy no.

000386171 of Rs. 41,400/- in favour of Ranu Sinha Roy).The matter of Mis-selling was communicated to the Head Grievance Redressal Officer of the O.Ps. by the Advocate

of the Complainants on 26.08.2017 requesting for refunding of the deposited amounts. The Complainants lodged complaint to the Head Grievance Redressal Officer of the O.Ps., duly received by O.Ps.’ office on 05.12.2016, 30.01.2017 and 27.02.2017. It also appears that the O.Ps. provided to the Policy holders “Policy Pay Out Request Form” stating the reason as Mis-selling and forgery issue and also the bank account no. and IFSC code of the Complainants and the said Request Form was received by the O.Ps.’ office on 05.11.2015 (for Complainant no. 2) and on 14.07.2015 (for Complainant no. 1) under seal and signature.

But since 2015 the O.Ps. did not refund the deposited amounts to the Complainants for which they received the “Policy Pay Out Request Form”.

4)It also reveals from the records filed by the Complainants that a Complaint was made by the Complainants before the Insurance Ombudsman at Kolkata but the Ld. Ombudsman issued Award no. IO/KOL/A/LI/_0246_/2017-18 (Rajesh Sinha Roy) and IO/KOL/A/LI/_0247_/2017-18 (Ranu Sinha Roy), disposing of the Complaint with remarks, inter alia, that there is no machinery available with the Forum for adjudication on the allegation “Signature forgery”.

5)We like to state that this Forum is also not designed to deal with forgery cases nor to carry out investigation thereon. But it is apparent that the policies were Mis-interpreted to the Complainants and Mis-sold to them for which the O.Ps. might have undertaken discussions with the Complainants for refunding of the amounts and “Policy Pay Out Request Forms“were issued to the Complainants and were received by the O.Ps. after the Complainants filled in the said forms with necessary information on bank details for crediting of the amounts through NEFT to the Complainants’ accounts. That was the case of 2015. But the Opposite Parties did not take any action for refunding the amounts to theComplainantsnor did they file any version for such Non-action on behalf of them. So, they are clearly deficient in rendering the promised service to the Complainants.

6) As soon as the Complainants paid the amounts for issuing the policies, they became the consumers under the O.Ps., interms of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Since the O.Ps. failed to render desired service to the Complainants, they are deficient as detailed at para 5 above, interms of section 2 (1) (g) read with section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act.

So, the Complainants deserve relief.

In the circumstances of above discussions, we are constrained to pass

ORDER

That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the Opposite Parties, in terms of section 13 (2) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

That the Opposite Parties are directed to jointly and severally refund Rs. 67,000/- to Complaint no. 1 with an interest of 7  percent from 14.07.2015 till date of actual payment and Rs. 41,400/- to Complainant no. 2 with an interest of 7  percent from 05.11.2015 till date of actual payment, within 30 days from the date of this Order;

That the O.Ps. are furtherdirected to jointly and severally pay to the Complainants an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony of the Complainants and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of this Order ;

That Non-compliance of any of above Orders by the Opposite Parties within the stipulated time shall entitle the Complainants to put the Order into execution in terms of section 27 of the Act ibid.

Let copy of the judgement be handed over to the parties when applied for.