State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited vs Jagdish Chand on 9 July, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 198 of 2013 Date of Institution : 15.05.2013 Date of Decision : 09.07.2013 1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Limited, having its Registered Office at One India Bulls Centre, Tower 1, 16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013. 2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 101-103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160 017. Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Jagdish Chand son of Sh. Tulsi Ram, Resident of House No.3, Block-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, U.T. Chandigarh. ....Respondent/complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-
Hence relying on the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, and giving the benefit to the consumer, as all his allegations have gone unrebutted, we decide this case in favour of the Complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.49,997/- received from the Complainant after deduction of mandatory statutory charges. This amount be paid within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @6% per annum on the payable amount from the date of receipt of the amount, till it is paid. No costs.
2. According to the complainant, he is a matriculate and working as a Foreman with M/s Bhushan Powers and Steel Limited. It was stated that he was persuaded by the representative of the Opposite Parties, to purchase a plan namely BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan, for which he paid a sum of Rs.49,997.19Ps, as premium. It was further stated that the representative/agent of the Opposite Parties, represented that the said plan, was a single premium plan and was like an FDR. The complainant received Policy No. 005189123 and kept the same, in a safe custody, believing it to be one time investment Policy. It was further stated that the complainant was, thus, surprised to receive a SMS/call, in the month of April, 2012, from the Opposite Parties, requesting him, for payment of 2nd installment of premium of another Policy i.e. BSLI Vision Policy. The complainant went through both the policies, but, as the same were in English language, he showed the same, to his Superior Officer. The complainant came to know that the payment term of the Policies was 20 years, commencing w.e.f. 01/11/2011, and the premium payable was annually. It was further stated that the complainant being a Foreman, with a limited salary, could not afford to pay the heavy premium, of the Policy, over such a long period. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties mis-sold the Policy, in question, to the complainant, by misrepresenting the facts and giving false assurances, to him. It was further stated that even the Opposite Parties, played fraud upon the complainant, and cheated him, by issuing the Policy, which he never opted for. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.49,997/-, paid as premium, alongwith interest @18% P.A.; compensation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, denied all the allegations, facts and averments, contained in the complaint. It was stated that the life assured, had filled in and submitted the proposal form for the purchase of BSLI Vision Plan, acceptable on standard rates, on the basis of the information provided by him (life assured) and, consequently, Policy dated 01.11.2011 was issued to him. It was further stated that the complete details, alongwith the features of the plan of the Policy, as well as, premiums to be paid, besides other charges leviable, were well explained to the life assured, and, only thereafter, he signed the proposal form. It was denied that it was an investment Policy like that of an FDR, and only single premium was payable. It was further that the allegations made by the complainant were not sustainable, as he being an educated person, signed the proposal form, wherein, all the particulars were mentioned, with regard to the terms and conditions of the said Policy. It was further stated that, in case, the terms and conditions of the Policy were not acceptable, to the complainant, he could exercise the option for cancellation of the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, but he did not do so, and, as such, later on, he could not turn round and say that the Policy sold to him, was not, for which he filled in the proposal form. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, submitted that the complainant being an educated person and serving as a Foreman, signed the proposal form, copy whereof is Annexure R-2. He further submitted that the duration of the Policy, issued in favour of the respondent/complainant was 20 years, with annual premium of Rs.49,997/-. He further submitted that, according to the complainant, he received the Policy document, and kept the same, in safe custody, without going through the same. He further submitted that, in case, the terms and conditions of the Policy were not acceptable, to the complainant, he could exercise the option for cancellation of the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, but he did not do so, and, as such, later on, he could not turn round and say that the Policy sold to him, was not the one, for which he filled in the proposal form, and that the same was fraudulently, issued in his favour. He further submitted that once, the free-look-period expired, the Policy could neither be cancelled, nor the premium could be refunded to the complainant. He further submitted that the Advisor/Agent of the appellants/ Opposite Parties, never misled the complainant, nor mis-sold the Policy, but the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that, no doubt, the complainant gave his income as Rs.3.75 lacs, per annum, in the proposal form. He further submitted that no mis-representation was made to the complainant. He further submitted that no fraud was played upon the complainant, by allegedly mis-selling the Policy, to him. He further submitted that the complainant was never cheated by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong in accepting the complaint.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the Advisor/Agent of the Opposite Parties, represented to the respondent/ complainant, that the Policy, which was being sold to him, was BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan, but instead reference was made to BSLI Vision Plan. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant being a Foreman, having an income of Rs.3.75 lacs per annum, could not afford to pay a sum of Rs.49,997/-, as annual premium, for a period of 20 years. He further submitted that, no doubt, the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, were received, by the respondent/complainant, but he kept the same, in safe custody, thinking that, it must be a single premium Policy, as told to him, by the Advisor/Agent of the appellants/ Opposite Parties, and did not exercise his right, for cancellation of the same, during free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same (Policy document). He further submitted that the Opposite Parties mis-sold the Policy, in question, to the complainant, by misrepresenting the facts, to him. He further submitted that, even the appellants/Opposite Parties, played fraud upon the complainant, and cheated him, by issuing the Policy, which he never opted for. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. The perusal of paragraph numbers 7 and 8 of the complaint, clearly goes to reveal that the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that the representative/agent/ advisor of the Opposite Parties, in order to cheat and defraud him, gave an absolutely false representation and frivolous/wrong assurances, inducing him, to invest in the Policy, being a single premium plan. It was also, in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant that he only signed the proposal form, which was at that time blank, in respect of the Policy, in question, and, later on, the same was filled in by the representative/agent/advisor of the Opposite Parties, as per his own whims and fancies. Not only this, these allegations of false representation, frivolous/wrong assurances, fraud and cheating were also attempted to be corroborated, by the complainant, by way of filing his affidavit, in the shape of evidence. In other words, serious allegations of false representation, frivolous/wrong assurances, fraud and cheating were levelled, by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties. Since, serious allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were levelled, by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, it is to be determined, as to whether, such disputed and complex questions of fact and law could be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank 111 (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.s case (supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife. The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the Policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum, accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured.
The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground, that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and for seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon`ble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents. It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
11. Since, the disputed and complex questions of fact and law, are involved in the complaint, as to whether, it was BSLI Bachat Endowment Policy or BSLI Vision Plan for which the complainant proposed; whether mis-representation was made and false assurances were held out to the complainant, by the Advisor of the Opposite Parties; whether, the complainant was cheated and defrauded by the Opposite Parties; whether, the signatures of the complainant, were obtained on the blank papers/ proposal form, without explaining the terms and conditions of the same, to him; and whether a person having an annual income of Rs.3.75 lacs, could afford to pay a premium of Rs.49,997/- (say Rs.50,000/-), per year, in our considered opinion, for proving such allegations of false representation, frivolous/wrong assurances, fraud and cheating, thorough analysis of documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross-examination is required. Such disputed and complex questions/facts, therefore, could not be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, in the proceedings, which are summary in nature, before it. It was not that mere allegations of false representation, frivolous/wrong assurances, fraud and cheating, referred to above, were levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, but he also attempted to prove the same, by way of filing affidavit, in the shape of evidence. The Opposite Parties, on the other hand, vehemently denied the same, and also attempted to disprove the same, by way of affidavit, in the shape of evidence. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such disputed and complex questions of fact and law. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, in its proper perspective, and wrongly usurped the Jurisdiction to decide the complaint, despite the fact that, the same (complaint) was not maintainable before it. The findings of the District Forum, thus, being perverse, are reversed.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
14. The respondent/complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to resort to any other legal remedy, which may be available to him, for redressal of his grievance, under the provisions of law.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
July 9, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg Rg