State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H.L.Sehgal vs 1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company ... on 9 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 128 of 2013 Date of Institution : 26.03.2013 Date of Decision : 09.04.2013 H.L.Sehgal S/o Lt. Sh.Daryai Lal, R/o H.No.184, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Office, SCO 149-50, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Sridhar Insurance Brokers, through its Manager/Prop./Partner, SCO No.845, 1st Floor, Shivalik Enclave, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh ....Respondent/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), on the ground, that the same was not maintainable.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being an old man, allured by the assurances and promises, made by the representative of the Opposite Parties, about getting good returns, agreed to invest the amount, in the Insurance Policy, as single premium plan. It was stated that the Executive of the Opposite Parties, taking advantage of week eyesight of the complainant, and his family members, gave them the Insurance Plan of 20 years, of regular premiums, instead of Single Premium Plan of 3-5 years. The complainant was in a state of shock due to the untimely demise of his son. In that state of mind, he believed the representation of the representative of the Opposite Parties and signed the blank papers. The Opposite Parties, thus, issued the Insurance Policies, the details whereof are given hereunder:-
Sr. No. Policy No. Amount Policy term Date of commencement Annual premium
1.
005045576 Rs.2,56,440/-
20 years 31.08.2011 Rs.49,997.19
2. 005081440 Rs.1,53,840/-
20 years 31.08.2011 Rs.29,993.63
3. It was further stated that the complainant aged about 85 years, was shown as a proposer of the Policies and his daughter, aged about 55 years, dependent upon him, was shown as insured. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, while issuing the aforesaid Policies, made misrepresentation to the complainant, played fraud upon him, and also cheated him, without considering the factum that the income of the complainant, who was the proposer, as also the insured daughter of the complainant, was not so high, as to enable them to pay huge annual premiums, in respect of the Policies, in question. It was further stated that, on coming to know about the misrepresentation, cheating, and fraud, played by the Opposite Parties, the complainant vide letter dated 06.08.2012, requested them, to cancel the Insurance Policies, aforesaid, and refund the amount, deposited by him, alongwith interest. It was further stated that neither the said letter was replied to, by the Opposite Parties, nor the status of the Policies was intimated to him, by them (Opposite Parties). It was further stated that, however, the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 04.09.2012, rejected the request of the complainant, on the ground, that the Insurance Policies could not be cancelled, as the same fell beyond the free-look-period. 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 total amount, paid by him, towards the Insurance Policies, aforesaid, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the date of deposits, till realization; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.
4. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted the issuance of the Insurance Policies, in question, as stated in the complaint, by the complainant. It was stated that the Insurance Policies were issued to the complainant, in the year 2011, as proposed by him, and the same were delivered to him, at his address, as mentioned in the application, immediately, thereafter. It was further stated that, Opposite Party No.1, neither received any query nor a complaint, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policies, i.e. during the free-look-period, for cancellation of the same, on the ground, that the terms and conditions were not acceptable to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant being a well educated person, after duly understanding the terms and conditions, signed the proposal forms, as well as, declaration, appended underneath the same. It was further stated that since the complainant did not ask for cancellation of the Policies, within the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policy documents, and even did not pay the premiums, for the subsequent years, the same stood lapsed. It was denied that any mis-representation was made to the complainant. It was also denied that fraud was played upon the complainant, by mis-selling the Policies, to him. It was also denied that the complainant was cheated by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that it had never issued any Policy to the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, being a broker, had only acted as an inter-mediatory, between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that since serious allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, and, as such, disputed facts could not be adjudicated upon, by it, in the proceedings which are summary, in nature before it.
8. Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the appellant who is an old aged man, of about 85 years, having weak eyesight, was allured by a representative of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties mis-sold the Policies, in question, to the complainant, by misrepresenting the facts, to him. He further submitted that, even the respondents/Opposite Parties, played fraud upon the complainant, and cheated him, by issuing the Policies, which he never opted for. He further submitted that since the income of the complainant, who was the proposer, as also the insured daughter of the complainant, was not so high, as to enable them to pay huge annual premiums, in respect of the Policies, in question, this fact alone was sufficient, to prove, as to how misrepresentation was made to the complainant; and how fraud was played upon him, while selling the Policies, by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the matter could be adjudicated upon, by the District Forum, even in the summary proceedings, but it fell into a grave error, in dismissing the complaint, on the ground, that the same was not maintainable. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
12. The perusal of paragraph number 5 of the complaint, clearly goes to reveal that the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that by issuance of the alleged Policies, by the Opposite Parties, they not only made misrepresentation to him, but also played fraud upon him, and cheated him, ignoring the factum that a person, who was having income of Rs.3 lacs, per annum, would be unable to invest huge annual premiums, aforesaid, in respect of the Policies, in question, for a period of 20 years, after reaching the age of 85 years. Not only this, these allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were also attempted to be corroborated, by the complainant, by way of filing his affidavit, in the shape of evidence. In paragraph number 2 of the complaint, it was also stated by the complainant, that his signatures were obtained on blank papers, by the Executives of the Opposite Parties, at a time, when he was in a state of shock, because of the untimely demise of his son. In other words, serious allegations of misrepresentation, 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 facts could be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Foras, 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 Commission 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 Commission, 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. 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 Commission. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
13. Since, the complex and disputed facts, are involved in the complaint, as to whether, the signatures of the complainant, were obtained on blank papers/proposal forms, by the Executives of the Opposite Parties, when he was allegedly under a mental shock, on account of the death of his son; whether misrepresentation, was made to him, with regard to the Policies, which he never intended to purchase;
whether fraud was played upon him, by allegedly mis-selling the Policies, which he never proposed; and whether he was cheated by the Executives of the Opposite Parties, in our considered opinion, for proving such allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating, thorough analysis of documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross-examination is required. Such complex and disputed 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 misrepresentation, 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 complex and disputed questions. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it had no Jurisdiction to decide the complaint, being not maintainable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. The 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.
18. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
April 9, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg