Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2018 of the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata—I (North) passed in CC/499/2016 by the Appellant/Complainant.

The fact of the complaint case in brief is that the Complainant being the policy holder under O.P LICI and the policy was issued in the name of the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 2 lakhs only to O.P and obtained the Jeevan Akshay-VI Pension Scheme for getting annuity for every month being policy no. 494738048. LICI paid to the complainant annuity upto the month of October, 2013. After the month of October, 2013 the O.P insurance company failed to pay the legal dues to the complainant. The complainant made several representations before O.P for payment of outstanding amount in respect of policy no. 494738048. The complainant was asked to provide some documents to O.P to which the complainant provided. The Complainant was again asked to provide some documents which the complainant complied. As per the direction O.P, the complainant wrote a letter to CBI. Subsequently Manager, CRM of O.P expressed his inability by sending a letter for releasing the amount in favour of the complainant.

OP contested the case by filing WV which speaks that the subject insurance policy is involved in the list of 275 policies for which a case being no. RCO10102013A0035-CBI, ACB, Kolkata has been registered by CBI subsequent to the detection of fraud for mis-utilization of huge fund of O.P for issuing policy to different persons in collusion with various individuals. It was stated that the claim of the claimant is involved in a criminal conspiracy giving rise of criminal investigation by the CBI at the behest of O.P. Huge amount of public money appears to have been defrauded in the matter schematically. After detection of the fraud a complaint was lodged with the CBI and CBI started to investigate the case and they also asked the policy holders to appear before the CBI and the questions were put by the CBI during the investigation to different policy holders. The complainant has claimed that he made the payment by cheque, but the complainant has miserably failed to disclose the encashment particulars of the payment of cheques. The complainant also avoided to disclose in his complaint petition regarding mode of payment of the 1^st premium i.e. whether the payment was made in cash or by cheque. But O.P addressed to the Inspector, CBI, ACB, Kolkata, the complainant has disclosed that he has made the payment of Rs. 2 lakh in cash through the agent. The cheque of O.P i.e. LICI was misused fraudulently for issuance of the policy no. 494738048 and therefore the policy stand void and the complainant is not legally entitled to receive any benefit under the void policies. During the investigation of the case it was found that a staff was also involved in the said fraud practiced upon the O.P.

On hearing both sides, Ld. DCDRC dismissed the Complaint Case with following observation:-

“On perusal of the materials on record we find that the complainant has claimed that he paid the amount by cash, but he failed to produce the 1^st premium receipt. It is found from the materials on record that a fraud case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by O.P and the said investigation has been made by CBI and charge sheet has been submitted. It is an admitted fact that where the fraud has been alleged by O.P and the complainant has stated that there was no fraud was committed by the complainant in collusion with the staff of O.P thereby the said challenge and counter challenge by the parties can be considered by recording the evidence of both the parties at the time of hearing of the case before a competent Civil/Criminal Court and the Consumer Forum cannot arrive at a finding of deficiency of service as reported in I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC). It is also found from the materials on record that 275 policies were manufactured by practicing fraud by the policy holders and the employee of O.P for which the said fraud case has been started by CBI and the present complainant’s policy was also involved in the investigation of the said case.”

During the cause of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that:-

1. There is no CBI investigation regarding this particular policy
2. No case is pending regarding the policy in question
3. No charge sheet has been filed against the policy

In replies to that Ld. Advocate of the Respondent/LIC submits that the policy no. 494738048 was procured by misutilizing the fund of the Opposite party by committing fraud of public money and therefore, said policy stands VOID and therefore, the Complainant is not legally entitled to receive any benefit under the VOID policy and there is no contract between the parties as the complainant has not paid any consideration amount in the contract of insurance.

Ld. Advocate of the Respondent further submits that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint case as the policy in question is involved in fraud and malpractice in obtaining it and in the present complaint, the complainant is also not able to establish by any supportive documents that the fund invested was actually invested by him from his own resources which clearly establishes that the policy was obtained in unfair means and therefore, the Opposite Party deny for payment of any compensation.

On careful analysis of the record, it appears me that case is criminal pending over the issue. In this context, I like to mention the following three observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court & Hon’ble NCDRC.

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V Pawa Vs. Utsab Basu (CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) 5477 OF 2008 has specifically held that when criminal case is pending the consumer complaint shall remain stayed.
2. The Hon’ble National Commission in RP 2717 of 2009 RAjib Kr Roy Vs Dr. G. S. Dey held that proceeding of consumer complaint shall start after the conclusion of criminal complaint.
3. PC CHACKO—Vs—LIC OF INDIA (2008) 1 SCC 321, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia held that “LIC OF INDIA being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its action must be fair, just and equitable but the same would not mean that it shall be asked to make charity of public money, although the contract of insurance is found to be vitiated by reason on an act of the insured.”

In view of the foregoing position, the instant Appeal A/481/2018 stands dismissed.