DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/125/2020

Date of Institution : 03.08.2020

Date of Decision : 11.04.2022

Gopal Krishan Mittal aged about 70 years s/o Sh. Kasturi Lal resident of H. No. B-I-596, Near Panchayati Mandir Street, Barnala-148101, Punjab. 

…Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, M/s Kotak Life Insurance C/o Kotak Mahindra Bank, College Road, Barnala-148101. 

2. The Branch Manager M/s Kotak Life Insurance 108, 5th Floor, Surya Tower, Above Ebony, The Mall Road, Ludhiana-141001

3. Surinder Bedi, Managing Director, M/s Bedi Finance Private Limited, B-XXXV-95, AN/17-18, New Asha Puri, Ludhiana-141008

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. RK Singla Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Sh. MS Sekhon counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Gopal Krishan Mittal filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against The Manager, Kotak Life Insurance, Barnala and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is a seventy year senior citizen and a retire government employee. It is further alleged that on the advice of opposite party No. 3 complainant purchased the policy by paying premium of Rs. 40,000/- from his saving bank account of Punjab National Bank, Barnala for the life of his son and complainant became policyholder of the said policy bearing No. 03555677 dated 19.10.2016 by Kotak Life Insurance mentioning that premium payment term for 12 years with payment mode annual. Complainant see the same and immediately called the opposite parties and told his grievances to them but they assured that the policy forms are printed for all the policies due to which this occurred but he has paid the premium being a single premium policy. Complainant further asked for the name of Agent as Rajesh Kumar then opposite party No. 3 told that the Rajesh Kumar is his employee. 

3. It is further alleged that after two months opposite party No. 3 Mr. Bedi called the complainant and told him that complainant will have to purchase two policies of one time premium of Rs. 50,000/- each including taxes to become eligible for bonus of Rs. 13,00,000/- of the previous policy plan. Then complainant agreed for the same and  opposite party No. 3 visited Barnala to collect the cheques and complainant purchased policies for the life of his daughter Ms. Bhavna Mangal and he was issued policy No. 03584836 dated 28.12.2016 and policy No. 03583404 dated 28.12.2016 for a term of 12 years each with annual payment of premium of each policy and name of Agent again Mr. Rajesh Kumar. After that opposite party No. 3 visited complainant and asked him to give two blank cheques each from the said accounts so that he may be able to deposit the bonus amount of the said policies to the said accounts of the complainant. Complainant accordingly also gave two blank cheques from the above accounts for the credit of bonus amounts to his accounts. But instead of credit of bonus Mr. Bedi misused the said cheques and paid one installment of Rs. 40,000/- for policy No. 0355677, one installment of Rs. 50,000/- each for policy No. 03584836 and three installments of Rs. 50,000/- each for policy No. 03583404 through ECR and in this way complainant paid total amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- to Mr. Bedi. 

4. It is further alleged that no medical certificate of insured and policyholders were taken by the opposite parties and age of complainant was also not considered before issuing the policies. The income of complainant was also not considered that whether complainant is able to pay the premiums. Further, except the said three policies Mr. Bedi sold 14 more polices of different companies and annual premium of all the policies become Rs. 20,01,900/- and it is not possible to pay such a huge premium for such a long time as per age and annual income of the complainant. It is duty of the insurance company to verify the age and income of policyholder and check other insurance policies/loan installments but the insurance companies in connivance with the Agents made money from him. It is a case of pure mis-selling of policies by insurance companies and Agents which is unfair trade practice. The act of opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 3,80,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.     

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

5. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false and abuse of process of this Commission. It is admitted by the complainant has purchased the policies in question in the year 2016 and in this way filed the present complaint beyond the limitation period of two years as provided under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act. The policy was issued by the answering opposite parties only when the complainant became conversant with the terms and conditions of the policy. The life insured in the present case is Mr. Manjul Mittal who is Chartered Accountant by profession and proposer is retired as bank Manager PNB and in this way they have well education and deep knowledge of financial sector. The complainant also not added Rajesh Kumar as necessary party. The present complaint is not maintainable as the proposal form was signed by the complainant and on the basis of said proposal form the policy was issued by the answering opposite parties. The premium is give by an insured to cover the risk for a given period and insurer covers the risk for the period for which the premium has been paid so the risk stood covered for the period for which premium has been paid and no right to claim repayment of the premiums paid. However, it is admitted that on the basis of proposal forms the policies bearing No. 03555677, 03584836 and 03583404 were issued to the complainant. The complainant voluntarily opted the frequency of premium payment as yearly for a term of 12 years. The complainant also sent policy documents to the complainant which were duly received by the complainant. The complainant can withdraw or return the policy within 15 days i.e. under Free Look Period provision but he retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy meaning that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. In policy No. 03583404 till date four premium is paid and policy is in force status. In policy bearing No. 03555677 and 3584836 two premiums paid by the complainant and are in lapsed status and if further premium were not paid then theses policies will be forecloses without pay out as per terms and conditions. Notices were also issued to the complainant. 

6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has given a declaration that he understood the terms and conditions of the policy. The policies were duly received by the complainant. It is clearly mentioned that the policy term is 12 years on the policy. The complainant never filed any complaint with the company nor return the policy within free look period. Rest of the submissions mentioned on merits already submitted in preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

7. The opposite party No. 3 initially proceeded against exparte and later on joined the proceedings but not file any written version or evidence.  

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of policies Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, copy of Tables 2010-2014 Ex.C-5, copy of statement of account Ex.C-6, copies of ITR Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-13, copy of legal notice Ex.C-14, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18, copy of complaints Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-22 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence copy of proposal form Ex.OP-1.2/1, copies of cheques dated 13.10.2016 and 15.12.2016 Ex.OP-1.2/ and Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of policy Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of inland letter card Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of declaration dated 19.12.2016 Ex.OP-1.2/7, copy of declaration dated 14.10.2016 Ex.OP-1.2/8, affidavit of Shakil Ahmad Ex.OP-1.2/9 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 

11. As stated by the complainant he is a retired Government employee and a senior citizen. In October 2016 Mr. Surinder Bedi opposite party No. 3 told the complainant that M/s Kotak Life Insurance has launched an insurance policy for senior citizens with one time premium and with a bonus of Rs. 13 lacs. Mr. Bedi advised the complainant to become a member of the said policy by just paying Rs. 40,000/- as one time premium. On the advice of Mr. Bedi the complainant purchased the said policy by paying premium from his saving bank account of Punjab National Bank for the life of his son Manjul Mittal. The complainant was issued a policy bearing No. 03555677 dated 19.10.2016 by Kotak Life Insurance mentioning the premium payment term for 12 years with payment mode annual. As stated by the complainant, he called the insurance company and Mr. Bedi about the annual payment mode who assured the complainant that this is a single premium policy. After two months again on the advice of Mr. Bedi the complainant purchased two policies for the life of his daughter Ms. Bhavna Mangal and complainant was issued policy bearing No. 03584836 dated 28.12.2016 and policy bearing No. 03583404 dated 28.12.2016 for a term of 12 years with annual payment mode. Again on asking for premium mode the complainant was assured by Mr. Bedi that these are single premium policies. After sometime Mr. Bedi visited the complainant and asked him to give two blank cheques which were given by the complainant from his PNB account but these cheques were misused by Mr. Bedi by paying installments of Rs. 40,000/- of policy No. 03555677, one installment of Rs. 50,000/- each for policy No. 03584836 and three installments of Rs. 50,000/- each for policy No. 03583404 through ECR. 

12. In reply the opposite parties stated that the complainant took one life insurance policy for his son on 14.10.2016 after understanding the key features and benefits of the policy. The opposite parties received the duly filled proposal form separately alongwith benefit illustration, Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and the first annual premium deposit by cheque. After a gap of two months he again approached the opposite parties and took two life insurance policies for his daughter in December 2016 after understanding the key features and benefits of the policies. The opposite parties received the duly filled proposal forms separately alongwith benefit illustration, Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and first annual premium deposit by cheque. It is also mentioned by the opposite parties that the life insured in this case is of Mr. Manjul Mittal who is a C.A by profession and the proposer (complainant) retired as Bank Manager PNB. Hence it clearly shows that they are well educated and have deep knowledge of insurance business and financial sector as this is a part of their job. They have signed the proposal forms carefully after going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policies. 

13. It is further stated by the opposite parties that each policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that if the policyholder not satisfied with the features of the policy he can withdraw or return the policy within 15 days under the “Free Look Period Provision.” The undertakings are also given by Bhavna Mangal and Munjal Mittal which are duly signed by the complainant Gopal Krishan Mittal Ex.OP-1.2/7 in which it is stated that if the proposer stops to pay the premium then the insured will pay.

14. The opposite party No. 3 has clearly stated that he is neither an Agent nor has anything to do with these insurance policies. It has been alleged that if serious allegations of cheating and fraud are leveled against him these can only be decided by the civil court after leading cogent evidence. 

15. The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that the opposite parties have taken the second installment of policies No. 03555677 and 03584836 and the complainant has also deposited the three installments of the policy No. 03583404. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he has purchased one time premium policies from the opposite parties but it established that he has further paid the premiums as per the policy schedule, therefore, principal of estoppal is applicable on the complainant as his act and conduct is otherwise from the pleadings.  

16. The opposite parties relied upon citation of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Tata AIG Versus Gulzari Singh decided on 26.2.2010 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that they are estopped from raising the ignorance or misrepresentation at all. It is also settled law by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) Raj-514 (SC) that a person signing the document is presumed to be signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. 

17. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the insurance company for revival of lapsed insurance policies in question. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        11th Day of April 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

 

              (Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member