DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 319

 Instituted on:   01.08.2018

                                                                         Decided on:      28.09.2023

1. Sukhvir Singh aged 49 years S/o Gurbachan Singh residents of village Sakrodi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahaluxmi, Mumbai-400011 through its Managing Director.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office : Nabha Gate, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager-148001.
3. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), 3^rd Floor, Parisrama Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, through its G.M.500001.

 ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant  : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op.no.1&2    : Shri Amit Kumar Bedi and Shri

  Amit Goyal Adv.

For the Op.no.3        : None.

QUORUM

                   JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

1. The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint is filed by complainant and he pleaded that the second week of July 2016 complainant received a telephone call from Mr. B.K. Srivastava alleging himself as Senior Manager of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. and asked the complainant that their company has launched a new FDR scheme. Under this scheme company will pay @ 24% p.a. for three years and the said amount can be withdraw at any time after 1 year. On believing assertion of the representative of the Op.1 and Op.2 Complainant showed his willingness to make investment. Op.no1 & 2 obtained the signature of the complainant on blank Performa for the purpose of investment and complainant paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the said agent of Ops. After one month complainant again got the telephonic call from Gurdeep Singh alleging himself to be the company official and asked the complainants to make the investment in the company by saying that the said plan is going to close on  30.09.2016 and allured the complainants to make the investment in the plan. The said officials obtained the six cheques from the complainant of different amount for making the investment in the company and again obtained the signature of Complainant. Complainant issued the cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dates for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and official of ops issued the receipts of the payments. In the month of May, 2017 complainant received a call from New Delhi by saying that the company has declared the bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the investment made by him and the official of the company again visited the house of Complainant and again obtained the signature of the complainant for releasing the bonus and also obtained four cheques bearing numbers 771304 & 771305 of Rs. 99,000/- in total and another cheques number 491447 & 491448 of Rs. 90,000/-. In the month of July, 2017 complainant was shocked to receive a call from the official of HDFC Life Insurance co. ltd. was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 25.7.2017. If the complainant have not deposit the amount, then the policy shall be lapsed. The official of Ops disclosed the policy number 18582404 to the complainant. Complainant did not obtained any policy and the amount has been taken on the pretext of making the FDR @ 24% p.a. and the official told that three policies have been issued from their company under which the complainants have to pay a regularly 2,00,000/- p.a. for seven years. The official also told that other receipt pertains to other insurance company i.e. Kotak Mahindra, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant visited the office of Kotak Mahindra at Patiala and they told to the complainant that these receipts bearing policy number 03535614 and 03535690 under which the complainant make the investment for twelve years for Rs. 1,56,000/- regularly and if the amount was not paid, then his amount shall be forfeited. Complainant visited the office of Op.2. Then they disclosed to the complainant under policy number C265512993 and C2655529656 to pay 1,89,000/- premium annually for twelve years. Thereafter, complainant then visited the office of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Sangrur. After seeing the receipts, the officials disclosed that policy number 0330253933 and policy number 0330243905. Complainant will have to deposit regular premium of Rs. 1,10,000/- annually for ten years. Complainant and his son were shocked to know that the official of Ops mislead the complainants for making the investment in their company. Complainant is not in a position to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,56,000/-  p.a. The complainant is a poor agriculturist. Complainant came to know that the agents of the Ops have played fraud with the complainant and grabbed the hard earned money of the complainant by disclosing wrong averments regarding the investments. On 22.9.2017 an amount of Rs. 54,204.77Ps was deducted from the bank account of the complainant. It is the duty of the Op.1 and Op.2 and their agents to verify the fact that the person who is getting the insurance is having sufficient income to pay a regular premium or not and in the case in hand, the premium of Rs. 6,56,000/- p.a. in all the policy is not possible for the complainants and his son. Op.1 and Op.2 have issued the policies in contravention to the rules of IRDA (OP.3) and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice Ops appeared and filed joint reply by Op.1 and Op.2 and taking Preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and having no cause of action to file the present complaint.
3. Reply on merits, it is denied that the signatures of the complainant were taken on blank documents. As the proposal filled by the complainant is a digital online proposal form. As such, only a consent cum declaration form is got singed from the life to be assured and paid Rs. 40,000/- as initial premium. Every fact of the policies was explained and understood by the complainant well at the time of taking the policy. The demand of six cheques from the complainant is totally false and denied. Only three cheques were demanded towards initial premium and same were utilised. The three cheques were given by complainant himself with his free will. No money of the complainant has been mis used. It is denied that any kind of fraud has been play upon the complainant by the Op.1 and Op.2. The complainant wants to get his policies cancelled/surrendered, then the Op.1& Op.2 has no issue in cancelling the policies but the same will be done as per the terms and conditions of the policies. The premium of the Op.1& Op.2 for all three plans was just 2,00,000/- and the complainant is in capacity to pay the same. The Ops have not violated any guidelines of IRDA. The replying Ops never received any cancellation request from the complainant. The complainant never approached the replying Ops nor any proof with regard to said fact has been placed on record. No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the replying Ops. The proposal form for the policy in question filled at Patiala as such only courts at Patiala have the jurisdiction. All formalities were completed at Patiala office of the replying. The complainant himself visited the office of the replying Ops alongwith his son to apply for the policies. All the remaining allegations in the complaint are denied by the Op.1 & Op.2 and lastly prayed complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. It is therefore prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
4. Reply filed by Op.3 separately and he pleaded that all the allegations are denied made in the complaint, except which are admitted specifically. The complainant has observed inter alia the following in his complaint. Believing the false promises of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant showed his willingness to make the investment and he was told that their local agent will come with the detailed plan to the complainant.  On believing the words of the agent of Op.1 and Op.2 the complainant made the investment in company of Op.1 and Op.2 for Rs. 40,000/-. Complainants issued six cheques bearing numbers 735401 to 735405 & 735407 of different dated for a total sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- and the above said amount were debited from the account of complainant. It is respectfully submitted that no specific relief is sought against the Op.3. At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint is basically between the complainant and Op.1 and Op.2 relating to cancellation of the policies sold to him by way of spurious calling and mis-selling and refund of amounts paid by the complainant. Op.3 has nothing to do in the matter. Since, the onus to resolve the grievance is on the Op.1 and Op.2. The Op.3 has no role in this regard as it discharges regulatory and supervisory functions. The Op.3 lays down broad policy and does not adjudicate upon between individual policy holder and insurance company. The complainant can sue the insurance company for any deficiency in service, unfair trade practices etc. On a perusal of a complaint, it appears to be a case of spurious calling and mis-selling. Op.3 first issued a public notice dated 4.11.2010 that some instances have been observed that general public are receiving calls from individuals who claim to be representatives of IRDAI. Op.3 is a regulatory body which does not involve directly or through any representative in sale of any kind of insurance or financial products and any person making any kind of transaction will be doing the same at one's own risk. Again Op.3 issue a public notice on 29.1.2014 and 15.8.2014 detailed advertisement and Informing public about the spurious calls. There is no relationship of consumer or service provider between the Op.3 and the complainant. Op.3 is statutory body set up by an Act of parliament, does not charge any fees or receive any consideration for the statutory functions it renders. Therefore, the consumer protection Act is not attracted to Op.3. Op.3 neither a proper nor necessary party in these proceedings and prayed dismiss the complaint against Op.3.
5. Complainant has submitted into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 attested affidavit. Similarly, Op.no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.Op.1&2/1 alongwith documents Ex.Op.1&2/2 to Op.1&2/17 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of Op.1 & 2. Similarly, Op.3 has annexed annexure 1 to 11.  
6. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same for avoiding the repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
7. During arguments the averments of the complainant counsel are that no evidence with regard to delivery of policy documents issued by the Ops qua the complainant. Further, the issue raised by the complainant that the proposal form was not read over to the complainant. Complainant also pleaded at para number 3(b) of the complaint that the agent of the Ops obtained the signature on blank paper. Moreover, no evidence with regard to the income was placed on record by the Ops to show that the complainant was having the capacity to pay the annual premium. Complainant has alleged that from the said evidence, it is clear that the alleged policy was issued by the Ops on mis representation by creating self style documents. It is writ large on the file that Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 three policies were issued in the name of complainant. All the policies bearing number 18700175, 18582404 & 18698957 the plan was mentioned as HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus. Policy No.18582404 term was 15 years and premium paying term was 10 years as per Ex.Op.1 &2/3 under policy no. 18698957 policy term was 10 years and Premium paying term was 7 years. In third policy no. 18700175 policy term was 10 years and Premium paying  term was 7 years. Complainant had deposited Rs. 80,000, Rs.40,000, Rs. 80,000 as per his account Statement which is Ex.C-10. Complainant has sufficient time since 25.7.2016 to 26.9.2016 (Two Months) to denied to deposit the premium amount if he is not satisfied with Ops. All the three payments made by complainant through demand draft dated 25.7.2016 of Rs. 40,161/- and cheque number 735401 for policy number 18698957 & 735402 for policy number 18700175 of Rs. 80,000/-. Policy premium receipt issued on 28.7.2016 as per Ex.C-6 and on 29.9.2016 as per Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7. This Commission has observed that from the perusal of account statement of complainant's son namely Davinder Singh having previous history to avail the insurance services. As per Ex.C-11 of page 2 on 25.3.2014 insurance premium paid Rs. 100/- (Transfer to SBI General Insurance). The present complaint has been filled on 01.8.2018 meaning there by prior to filing the complaint 4 years & 4 months &7 days ago, the son of complainant  having knowledge of insurance policy. It seems to this Commission in the light of Ex.C-10 on page 4 the account statement of complainant on 11.2.2016 amount of Rs. 9,62,232/- was credited. The total balance was Rs. 11,63,904/- on 11.2.2016 in the account of complainant till 25.7.2016 before credited the amount of Rs. 40,161/- through demand draft in favour of HDFC. The balance of account was Rs. 5,06,483/- till 02.6.2016 and complainant has used Rs. 4,00,000 /- since 11.2.2016 to 25.7.2016. To save the money complainant planned to invest his saving amount into insurance policy. From this Scenario the averments of complainant with regard to no evidence of income of complainant is not believable. Moreover, as per Ex.Op.1&2/5, the customer consent document was executed on 25.7.2016. Complainant put his signature on it in Punjabi Language. A photograph of complainant was also pasted on the consent document. It seems to this Commission, at the time of Execution of Ex.Op.1&2/5 and Ex.Op.1&2/8, complainant provided the account number, IFSC, mail Id etc. to the official of Ops. However, the witness was the son of the complainant, who put his signature in English language. Occupation of the complainant's son was mentioned as "service". We feel that complainant and his son having knowledge of the execution of the policies in question.  Being an ordinary prudent man no one put his signature on any document i.e. is printed blank Performa before read over the contents of the documents. The policies in question are in digital form. So, there is no need to explain the contents of the policies. The complainant is unable to prove this factum that as per pleading of complainant para no.3 (b), the signature of the complainant was obtained on blank Performa. Complainant has pleaded in complaint's para no.3(c & d), the six cheques are obtained from the complainant by officials of the Ops. To trace out the varsity of truth, complainant has pleaded in his complaint 7 policies. We examined from the perusal of record there are infact 9 policies in toto. As per Ex.C-10 on 25.7.2016 a demand draft issued in favour of HDFC by complainant no.1 of Rs. 40,161/-. Complainant no.1 again on 16.09.2016 cheque no. 735404 of Rs. 76,000/- and cheque no. 735403 of Rs. 80,000/- and chequs no. 735405 dated 22.09.2016 to Bajaj of Rs. 55,000/-. On the same day another cheque no. 735407 dated 22.9.2016 of Rs. 55,000/- and on 26.9.2016 cheque no.735401 to HDFC Standard Life I of Rs. 80,000/- and again on 26.9.2016 HDFC Standard Life I cheque no. 735402 of Rs. 80,000/- issued by complainant no.1. Again after 7 months and 22 days on 17.5.2017 cheque no. 71305 of Rs. 49,000/- and cheque no. 71304 of Rs. 50,000/- issued by complainant no.1 in favour of TALIC respectively.  Similarly, as per Ex.C-11 complainant no.2 on 23.5.2017 vide cheque no. 491948 of Rs. 47,000/- and cheque no. 491947 of Rs. 43,000/- issued as premium of the policy of TATA AIA as per Ex.C-9. So the total 9 policies, 10 cheques & one demand draft were issued and executed between the complainant and his sons with different insurance companies, out of which 6 policies are issued in favour of Complainant and 2 policies are issued in favour of Davinder Singh and one policy issued in favour of Maninder Singh Grewal S/o Sukhvir Singh. As per Ex.C-5 to C-7, the complainant availed 3 policies from the Ops bearing policies number 18698957, 18700175 premium of Rs. 80,000/- each & 18582404 of Rs. 40,000/- as premium. Policy term was 10 years and premium paying term was 7 years. Total premium in all 3 policies in question was Rs. 2,00,000/-. As per Ex.Op.1&2/7 gross yearly income was mentioned as Rs. 8,00,000/-. Education of complainant was mentioned as under matric. From this angle, the complainant has sufficient income to deposit the premium yearly with regard to the policy in question if he desire so to continue the same. It transpire from perusal of Ex.Op.1&2/6 that on the very next day on 30.9.2016 that the Ops dispatched the policy documents under policy number 18698957 through blue dart courier service with reference number 33502976404 which is Ex.Op.1&2/6. Another policy number 18700175 also dispatch to complainant's permanent address through courier on 30.9.2016 but as per document Ex.Op.1&2/16 &17 both the couriers were undelivered due to out of delivery area. This Commission has observed that the courier service are generally available in cities not in the villages. After that Op.1 &2 dispatched the documents on 14.10.2016 which was delivered on 22.10.2016, as per Ex.Op.1&2/9 & Op.1&2/13. During arguments the learned counsel for the Op.1&2 has argued that Ex.Op.1&2/9 & Op.1&2/13 only mentioned the village sakraudi not mentioned the name of the complainant. To solve this issue with regard to proper dispatched the policy documents by Op.1&2 or not to the complainant, this Commission examined the documents Ex.Op.1&2/14& Op.1&2/15 Shree Ji Enterprises Licensed Mailer of "India Post" wrote a letter dated 06.09.2019 to Op.1 regarding delivery status of consignment number EA586549303 IN and EA 586549263 IN was dispatched on 13.10.2016 & delivered on 22.10.2016 to Sukhvir Singh (now complainant) confirmed by the Postal authorities. Complainant did not rebuttal this issue by way of cogent evidence.  This Commission has no hesitation to hold that Ops had duly delivered the policy documents as per Ex.Op1&2/9 and Op.1&2/13 to Op.1&2/15 to the complainant. "A Man can lie but document can't." Proposal form manually filled by complainant, policy not admitted by complainant, Signed not denied by complainant & his sons. The terms and condition of the policy are binding upon the respective parties. No party can go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance contract are utmost good faith in nature. The term and condition of the policies in question clause (6) surrender value is reproduced as under:-
   1. The policy will acquire a minimum guaranteed value upon the payment of

• The first two years premium, if the premium pay term is less than 10 years or
• The first three years premium, if the premium paying term is ten years or more.

8. As per Ex.C-5 vide policy number 18700175 & Ex.C-6 vide policy number 18582404 and another policy number 18698957 the complainant had deposited only one premium respectively. So, complainant is not entitled for surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
9. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we dismiss the complaint of the complainant
10. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                                Announced.                                              

                                28^th September, 2022

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President