Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/285/2020

Ashwani Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director Reliance Nippon Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Rakhra

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/285/2020
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Ashwani Kumar son of late Sh. Gian Chand, resident of House No.A-6, Sector 125, Palam Height, New Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, 5^th Floor Off, Western Express Highway, Santacruz, East, Mumbai 400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT)

… Opposite Parties

[2]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/287/2020
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Ashwani Kumar son of late Sh. Gian Chand, resident of House No.A-6, Sector 125, Palam Height, New Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, 5^th Floor Off, Western Express Highway, Santacruz, East, Mumbai 400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/276/2020
Date of Institution	:	11/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Mandeep Kaur daughter of late Sh. Swarn Singh, resident of House No.1614, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, 5^th Floor Off, Western Express Highway, Santacruz, East, Mumbai 400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[4]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/277/2020
Date of Institution	:	11/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Avneet Kaur daughter of late Sh. Swarn Singh, resident of House No.1614, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, 5^th Floor Off, Western Express Highway, Santacruz, East, Mumbai 400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[5]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/72/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Usha Rani wife of Sh. Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

 

 

[6]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/77/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[7]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/78/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[8]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/79/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[9]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/73/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[10]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/74/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[11]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/76/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Gian Chand son of Sh. Puran Ram, resident of House No.29/2, Kajheri, Chandigarh (U.T).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Plot No.10-15, 14^th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, SCO No.122-123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT).

… Opposite Parties

[12]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/772/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/11/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Rattan Chauhan s/o Sh. Ram Chander r/o 1268, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[13]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/773/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/11/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Rattan Chauhan s/o Sh. Ram Chander r/o 1268, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[14]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/776/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/11/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Rattan Chauhan s/o Sh. Ram Chander r/o 1268, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[15]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/32/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/01/2021
Date of Decision	:	06/10/2023

Bal Krishan Sharma r/o Flat No.5078/3, Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 5^th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055.
2. The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Sector 9, Panchkula. 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant (in cases at Sr.No.1 to 14)  None for complainant (in case at Sr.No.15)
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. The complainants in the above complaints have sought the relief of refund of amount and compensation etc. As such, during arguments, it was agreed upon by the parties that captioned consumer complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
2. For the sake of brevity, relevant details, necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaints i.e. Policy No., premium paid, date of payment etc., in respect of each consumer complaint, are tabulated as under :-

S. No.	C.C. No.	Policy No.	Premium paid	Receipt dated	Receipt Annexure
	CC/285/2020	52756035	3,99,999.82	23.09.2016	C-1
	CC/287/2020	52771147	1,49,999.67	06.10.2016	C-1
	CC/276/2020	53242907	71,999.46	15.06.2018	C-1
	CC/277/2020	53243743	71,999.46	19.06.2018	C-1
	CC/72/2021	53287005	2,00,000.44	23.08.2018	C-2
	CC/77/2021	53594166	1,00,000.20	08.11.2019	C-2
	CC/78/2021	53451324	50,264.48	27.03.2019	C-2
	CC/79/2021	53231112	50,264.30	28.05.2018	C-2
	CC/73/2021	52967661	51,000.38	19.05.2017	C-2
	CC/74/2021	53494075	50,999.98	04.06.2019	C-2
	CC/76/2021	53122776	34,999.98	06.01.2018	C-2
	CC/772/2021	53783295	2,49,999.07	22.09.2020	C-1
	CC/773/2021	53852723	1,00,191.93	14.01.2021	C-1
	CC/776/2021	TK986963	1,00,000.00	17.03.2020	C-1
	CC/32/2021	TJ961168	2,50,000.00	13.11.2019	C-1

 

3. To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.285 of 2020-Ashwani Kumar Vs. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance & Another.
4. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that in the year 2016, the agents of the OPs had approached the complainant with the investment scheme which yields high profits.  Being allured by the words of the agents of the OPs, policy namely “Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Saving Increasing Income Plan” (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) was issued by the OPs by collecting premium amount of ₹3,99,999.82.  At that time, it was assured to the complainant by the agents of the OPs that the amount paid by the complainant in the shape of premium shall be invested like an FD and only three years’ premium have to be paid.  However, when the complainant received a notice of renewal premium of the policy, he came to know that in fact the agents of the OPs had mis-sold the policy as the said notice indicated policy term of 24 years and the annual premium of ₹3,99,999.82 was payable for 12 years.  In this manner, OPs have mis-sold the subject policy by misrepresenting the facts to the complainant just to grab money, knowing fully well that the complainant was a senior citizen even at the time of issuance of the subject policy and he could not have waited for such a long period for the amount which was invested by him under the impression that the same will be refunded to him after three years. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
5. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and also that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. However, it is admitted that the subject policy was issued by the OPs to the complainant and the terms and conditions of the same are very clear that the premium was payable by the complainant for 12 years and the policy term was for 24 years.  It is denied that the subject policy was mis-sold to the complainant.  In fact, the complainant has filled the proposal form and on admitting the contents of the same to be correct had appended his signatures on the same.  It is further alleged that in fact, the complainant is backing out from the terms and conditions of the subject policy by concealing material facts from this Commission.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
6. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
7. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹3,99,999.82 to the OPs, which was acknowledged by them vide the first premium receipt dated 23.9.2016 (Annexure C-1), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have mis-sold the subject policy to the complainant by assuring him that the aforesaid amount shall be invested in the shape of FD for three years and on maturity, the maturity amount shall be refunded to him and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant has paid the aforesaid amount as first installment in the shape of premium to the OPs and had further agreed to pay the same for 12 years with policy term of 24 years and the consumer complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of the first premium receipt (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹3,99,999.82, which was duly acknowledged by the OPs and said fact has not been disputed by the OPs in their written version.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that at that time the complainant was at the age of 67 years. As the said fact was in the knowledge of the OPs that the complainant was a senior citizen as well as 67 years of age, it was not possible for any prudent person to wait for the maturity amount for further 24 years, especially when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was a retired person and it was otherwise also not possible for him to pay an amount of ₹3,99,999.82 as annual premium for 12 long years. 
   3. Similarly, even in the other consumer complaints the facts are also coming that either the complainants are senior citizens or are students.  As such, it is not possible for the complainants to pay such a huge amount in the shape of annual premium for 12 long years.
   4. No doubt, OPs have pleaded that as per the letter dated 23.9.2016 annexed with the policy document (Ex.R-2), if the complainant was not satisfied, he could have opted out of the policy, within 15 days of its receipt, as per the free look provision provided therein, however, since the OPs have failed to prove on record the receipt of the said letter by the complainant, no reliance can be placed on the same.
   5. It is worth mentioning here that Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers.  The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, III (1993)CPJ 7(SC) held as under :-

“To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, 'to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers'. Use of the word 'protection' furnishes key to the minds of makers of the act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.”

6. In view of the foregoing, it stands proved on record that the complainant has paid the aforesaid amount to the OPs and the said evidence led by the complainant has not been rebutted by the OPs with any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant had purchased the subject policy with free volition, rather it appears that the agents of the OPs have misrepresented the facts to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant had paid a huge amount of ₹3,99,999.82. Hence, the OPs are certainly proved to have mis-sold the subject policy and thereby indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints succeed, the same are hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under, in each consumer complaint :-

1. to refund the entire premium amount to the complainant (as depicted in column No.(4) of the table in para No.2 above), alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.   A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of that file.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 06/10/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member