State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tarsem Lal vs Birla Sun Life on 3 December, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 381 of 2012 Date of institution: 19.11.2012 Date of decision : 03.12.2012 Tarsem Lal Tagra S/o Sh.Ram Lal Tagra r/o House No.1670, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex, Chandigarh 160047. . Appellant Versus 1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No.149- 150, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director, One India Bulls Center, Tower-I, 15th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. .. Respondents. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Present Sh.Manmohan, Advocate for the appellant. QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder(Retd), President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Per Justice Sham Sunder(Retd) , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, but granted liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if so, advised.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant(now appellant) took three Insurance Policies from the Opposite Parties, bearing Policy Nos. 004534640 dated 30.11.2010, 004701767 dated 15.2.2011 and 004731076 dated 28.2.2011, in the name of his son Anurag Singh Tagra. It was stated that alongwith cheque of the premium amount, residence as well as ID proof were collected by the agent of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that Anurag Singh Tagra had got his name changed from Anurag Kohli vide Decree of the Court dated 16.11.2009, and since then, his son was writing and signing his new name i.e. Anurag Singh Tagra. It was further stated that son of the complainant was not residing with him, and he gave his sons phone number to the Insurance Agent, and told him to get his signatures, on the documents, as Life Assured. He was also advised to get the relevant documents, from Anurag Singh Tagra. It was further stated that Mr.Vijay Khurana, who was accompanying the Insurance Agent of the Opposite Parties, told that the documents of Anurag Singh Tagra, were available in the file of Kotak Life Insurance Company, and the same would be given to him. It was further stated that the Insurance Agent of the Opposite Parties did not bother to get the signatures of Anurag Singh Tagra, but the same were forged by somebody else as Anurag only. It was further stated that monthly premium of Rs.1005.30p was being paid regularly, through automatic transfer, from the bank account of the complainant. It was further stated that, at the time of giving two cheques to Mr.Rahul Tagra, an Insurance Agent, for obtaining second and third Policies, he was supplied the Decree of the Court, referred to above, and Driving Licence of Anurag Singh Tagra. It was further stated that the second and third Policy papers, were showing the name of the Life Assured as Anurag Kohli and also showing his signatures similar to his self styled signatures appearing on the old Driving Licence. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to correct the name of the Life Assured, in the second and third Policies, but they vide letter dated 21.3.2011 (Annexure C5) asked him to provide a copy of the Gazette Notification, valid age proof or marriage certificate. The complainant sent a letter dated 22.11.2011, alongwith a copy of the Gazette Notification in respect of change of name of the Life Assured. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties intimated that the name of the Life Assured had been changed/corrected as Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra, in their record. It was further stated that Mr.Rahul Tagra and his boss Mr.D.S.Randhawa also cheated the complainant, by encouraging him to invest amount in the TATA AIG Life Insurance Company. It was further stated that when these policies were shown to Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra, in the month of April,2012, for verification of his signatures, he denied having signed any policy document as Life Assured. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties forged the signatures of the Life Assured in the Applications/Proposal Forms. Moreover, the personal particulars, such as occupation, name of the employer, business, annual income, PAN Card No., residential address etc. of the Life Assured, were false and incorrect. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties forged the signatures on the Insurance Policies and prepared false documents. It was further stated that the complainant sent a letter on 12.4.2012, Annexure C-8, to Opposite Party No.2, and demanded the documents, on the basis of which, the policies were prepared. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 10.5.2012 Annexure C-9, to Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part 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 by him, directing the Opposite Parties, to declare the aforementioned three Insurance Policies as invalid and refund their amounts alongwith interest @ 18% ; produce the original documents, on the basis of which these policies were prepared in favour of the Life Assured ; pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of forgery, harassment and mental agony ; and legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, stated that they issued first Insurance Policy bearing No.004534640 dated 30.11.2010, on the basis of the proposal/application dated 29.11.2010 and the information provided by the Life Assured. It was further stated that satisfied with the services of the Opposite Parties, in the next year, the Life Assured purchased two more Policies which were issued on the basis of the applications/proposal forms dated 20.1.2011 and 12.2.2011 respectively, under Birla Sun Life Insurance Bachat Money Back Plan. It was further stated that before acceptance of all the aforesaid proposals, by the Opposite Parties, the contents of the same, illustrations and the addendum forms, were read over and explained to the Life Assured in the language best known to him.
It was further stated that the complainant vide request form dated 15.3.2011, asked the Opposite Parties to correct/change the name of the Life Assured from Anurag Kohli to Anurag Singh Tagra which he mentioned in the proposal/application forms wrongly. On furnishing the requisite documents, by the complainant, the name of the Life Assured, was changed from Anurag Kohli to Anurag Singh Tagra. It was further stated that the complainant could return/surrender the Policy, during the Free Look period of 15 days, by stating the reasons, but he did not exercise such an option. It was further stated that since the complainant made serious allegations of cheating and forgery against the Insurance Company, which constituted complicated and disputed facts, the same could not be completely and effectively adjudicated upon, by the District Forum, as the proceedings before it, are only summary in nature. It was further stated that, thus, the appropriate remedy with the complainant was to approach the Civil Court for the adjudication of dispute. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The remaining allegations, 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 dismissed the complaint, as stated, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.
6.. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that, the Opposite Parties, by forging the signatures of the complainant on the Applications bearing Nos.42422179, 42540374 and 42870006, Anneuxres R2, R3 & R4, prepared the false Policy documents. He further submitted that at the time of maturity of the Insurance Policies, the Life Assured could not make his claim, on the basis of wrong name and forged signatures on the Applications. It was further submitted that issuing of Insurance Policies with wrong name, forged signatures and wrong personal particulars of the Life Assured amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, and, as such, the Policies were required to be declared as invalid and the premium paid was required to be refunded or fresh policies were required to be issued, with correct name, genuine signatures and correct personal particulars of the Life Assured. He further submitted that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, but it wrongly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum , being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. The perusal of the complaint reveals that clear-cut allegations, were made, by the complainant, in the complaint, that on the Applications/proposal forms in column 15 Declaration by the Life to be insured(and Proposer, if not the life to be insured), the Life Assured Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra never signed, but his signatures were forged by the Opposite Parties. It was also alleged that wrong personal particulars of the Life Assured were incorporated in the proposal forms, by the Agents of the Opposite Parties. In other words, serious allegations of forgery and cheating were levelled by the complainant aginst the Agents of the Opposite Parties. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006(2)CPC668(SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I(1998)CPJ13, 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 Foras, and the appropriate forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.s case (surpra), 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 the National Commission. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
10. Since the complex and disputed questions/facts, are involved in the complaint, as to whether, the Life Assured Anurag Singh Tagra signed the applications/proposal forms, annexures R2, R3 & R4 or the Agents of the Insurance Company forged the same ; and whether the Life Assured made a false disclosure with regard to his personal particulars such as occupation, name of the employer, business , annual income, PAN Card No., residential address etc. or the same were wrongly incorporated in the aforesaid applications/proposal forms, by the Agents of the Opposite Parties of their own, in our considered opinion, for proving the same, thorough analysis of the voluminous documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross-examinations 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 forgery and cheating, referred to above were levelled against the Opposite Parties, by the complainant, but he also attempted to prove the same by way of affidavit. The Opposite Parties vehemently denied the same, and also attempted to disprove the same, by way of affidavits, in the shape of evidence. Thus, only the Civil Court, could decide such complicated, complex, and disputed questions. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit must fail and same stands rejected.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Sd/-
Pronounced.
(Justice Sham Sunder)(Retd) 3.12.2012 President.
Sd/- (Neena Sandhu) Member Js STATE COMMISSION (Appeal No.381of 2012) Present: Sh.Manmohan, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated:
ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
(Neena Sandhu) (Justice Sham Sunder)(Retd) Member President