Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1392/2009

Ashok Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.1392/2009

 

 

Ashok Singh,

R/o  A-151, Wellington Estate-2,

DLF Ph. V, Gurguan,

Haryana-122002.

Vs.

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.
2. 9^{th Foor, Godrej Coliseum,}

         Behind Everand Nagar Sion(E),

        Mumbai-400002, India,

       Through its Managing Director.

 

 

2. Mr. Gaurang Shah,

         The Managing Director,

         Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

        Behind Everand Nagar Sion(E),

       Mumbai-400002, India

 

3. Mr. Manu Tripathi,

          Area Manager,

         Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

       7^th Floor, Ambadeep,

       14, K.G. Marg,

     New Delhi-110001.

 

4. Mr. Harpal Singh,

       Asstt. Manager-Sales,

       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

       7th Floor, Ambadeep,

        14, K.G. Marg,

       New Delhi-110001.

 

 

 

 

 

 ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant received  a Life Insurance Policy   namely as Kotak Flexi Plan II  bearing  No.00747540 dated 9.11.2007 insured in his name.  However, he had never applied for the same.  The alleged policy was unilaterally imitated and issued by the OPs without consulting the complainant and the said policy was received after the expiry of minimum time period, which is 15 days.

The Proposal form with Application No.NA 492346 and Form ID NO.10101080 clearly show that the particulars filled therein and details of the complainant were not correct.  Moreover, in the Proposal Form, the complainant’s marital status was shown as married but at the relevant time he was a bachelor. The money lying the complainant’s account were used by the OP against the premium of Rs.15,000/- for insurance policy without his knowledge and instructions, as such the complaint sent various requests and reminders to annul/cancel the policy.  The OP did not pay any heed to his request and as such he sent a legal notice dated 24.2.2009.  The OP replied the legal notice denying all the averments, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  It has filed its written statement, wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the OP has provided the policy documents to the complainant through Blue Dart Courier vide AWB32500621635 which were received by one Mr. Pancham on 12.10.2007.  After receiving of the policy documents, the complainant has the right of free-looking period in which, if, the complainant does not want to continued with the policy, he can get the same cancelled.  But the complainant has not availed the facility of free-looking period  and continue the policy which show that he is very much interested to continue the same.  Prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on this ground alone.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  i) the policy did not bear the signatures of the complainant ii) signature has been forged by OP with the intention of committing fraud iii) details/particulars mentioned in the proposal form was incorrect.

6.       Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

7.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

 

8.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated issues such as fraud,  threatening and coercion. This issues required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

 

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 19/03/2019.

 

                                       (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                 PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                               MEMBER