National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Devraj Kishore Das vs Chief Manaher, Reliance Life Insurance ... on 13 July, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1859 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/06/2017 in Complaint No. 34/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. DEVRAJ KISHORE DAS S/O. SHRI. GHANSHYAM KISHORE DAS. R/O. CHUIE KHADAN BANGLA, IDGAHBHATA, MUKUT NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK RAIPUR CHATTISGARH. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. CHIEF MANAHER, RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 6 ORS. NO.121, H BLOCK 1, 1ST FLOOR, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY. NAVI MUMBAI. MAHARASHTRA. 2. CHIEF SECRETARY, RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE: 9TH FLOOR, 10 FLOOR,BUILDING NO.2, ORCHID PARK, NERLON COMPOUND, NEXT TO HUB MALL. EAST MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, INDIA INFOLINE INSURANCE BROKER LIMITED. SECTOR-63, A 15, 4 D. NOIDA. UTTAR PRADESH. 4. SECRETARY, INDIA INFOLINE INSURANCE BROKER LIMITED. TELPLACE, BILASPUR, MADHYA PRADESH. 5. . . . . 6. BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. MILENIUM PLAZA, RING ROAD NO.1. RAIPUR CHATTISGARH. 7. SHRI. DINESH SINGH. SN CODE 70175917/BHILLAI 8. SHRI. PRADEEP DUBEY, RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. 1ST FLOOR, SHIVNATH COMPLEX, GI ROAD, SUPELA, BHILLAI DURG. CHATTISGARH. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Adity Parolia, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 13 Jul 2018 ORDER
This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Devraj Kishore Das against the order dated 02.06.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chattisgarh (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC/2015/34.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of February, 2015 appellant received a phone call from the representative of the respondent No.1, wherein it was informed to the appellant, that the respondent No.1 as a promotional offer is providing loans at lower interest rate. The appellant was informed that loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- would be provided to the appellant, subject to the condition that the appellant purchases four policies of Rs.2,00,000/- each. On 11.03.2015, the appellant issued four cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- each totaling to Rs.8,00,000/- pertaining to the IDBI Bank account of the appellant in favour of the respondent No.1 and dispatched the photo, identity proof, address proof, pan card, etc.at the address of the respondent . On 20.03.2015 policy bearing No.52095834 was issued. On 30.03.2015, policy bearing No.52095834 was issued. On 04.04.2015, policy bearing No.52145105 was issued and on 13.04.2015, policy bearing No.52159603 was issued. The appellant contacted the representatives of the respondent No.1 several times with respect to the grant of the loan, however, they kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. On 01.12.2015, aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.34 of 2015 before the State Commission. On 02.06.2017, the State Commission dismissed the complaint.
3. Hence this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the main ground for appeal is that the State Commission has not considered a very important aspect of the complaint that complainant never signed any of the proposal forms though the copies of photo ID and other documents were supplied to the opposite parties. Without signing the proposal forms the policies have been fraudulently issued by the opposite parties by forging the signatures of the appellant on the proposal forms/applications. The State Commission has totally overlooked this aspect of the complaint and has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
5. The main cause of complaint was that the representative of respondent Nos.1 & 2/ Insurance Company approached the complainant and promised that a loan of Rs.3 crores will be released by the respondent Insurance Company if the complainant took certain policies. Accordingly, complainant submitted all the relevant documents like photo ID proof, address proof etc.to the opposite party Insurance Company. Four policies were issued for Rs.2,00,000/- each. After paying Rs.8,00,000/- by the complainant, however, no loan was sanctioned or released to the complainant by the Insurance Company. It was argued by the learned counsel that the policies have been issued by defrauding the complainant and by making false promise to the complainant. The opposite parties have indulged in forging the signatures on the proposal forms/applications. As no proposal form has been signed by the complainant, these policies should not have been issued by the Insurance Company and therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest.
6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The State Commission has observed in its order dated 02.06.2017 as follows:-
"The complainant has submitted following statement in his support Document No. Application No. Policy No. 3 08520131 52095834 4 08520132 52095846 5 0711207 52199603 6 0711208 52145105 Which proved that the complainant has paid Rs.8,00,000/- and purchased the insurance policies."
7. The State Commission has further observed that the forwarding letter of the Insurance Company for sending the policies states as under:-
"Please note we do not offer any free gift or interest free loan facility on any of our policy and key features documents page No.05 stated key services for loan para stated as follows. "loans facility is not available under the plan."
8. On the basis of above, the State Commission has concluded:
"So on basis of above documents it is proved that Insurance policy purchased by the complainant had no provision for loan. In this situation statement of the complainant to avail loan under the said policies is not acceptable."
9. Prima facie when the complainant has filed all relevant papers like photo, ID proof , address proof etc., it is not clear why the complainant could not have filed the proposal form/application form because the purpose of submitting the photo, ID proof and address proof etc. becomes meaningless if the proposal form/application was not given by the applicant. It is seen from the complaint that the complainant has not clearly stated that the proposal forms/application forms were not signed by him though he has stated that policy and other related papers were not signed by the complainant.
10. As is evident from the order of the State Commission, the State Commission has mentioned application numbers given in the complaint, which the complainant had produced to prove that he has paid Rs.8,00,000/- and the policies have been issued. The natural question arises as to from where the complainant got to know the application numbers if he had not signed these applications. The Insurance Company in its written statement has stated that as per IRDA guidelines the copies of the proposal forms were also sent along with policy documents to the complainant. Thus, if the complainant has found these application numbers from the copies of the proposal forms sent by the opposite parties, then the complainant should have objected to these proposal forms then and there as his claim is that he never signed these proposal forms/application forms. The policy could have also been returned within the "free look period" of 15 days.
11. The above examination lends support to the fact that proposals/application forms were signed by the complainant. The complainant has not returned the policies within free look periods of 15 days therefore, the policies cannot be returned now and if the complainant does not want to continue with these policies he will be free to approach Insurance Company for termination or surrender of the policies as per terms and conditions of the policies. Moreover, if the allegation of the complainant that signatures have been forged on the proposal forms is taken at face value, the complaint filed before the consumer fora is not maintainable as the consumer fora do not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaints involving fraud and forgery as held by this Commission in the following case:-
"P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India, II (2015) CPJ 54 (NC). It has been held that:
"6. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under:-
In Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that the complaints which are based on the allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require the leading of voluminous evidence and consideration thereof cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court; 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 III (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."
12. The State Commission has found that no proof has been produced by the complainant in respect of his assertion that a loan of Rs.3 crores was promised to him. Even at the appellate stage, no such proof has been filed and therefore, the allegation of the complainant against the Insurance Company that a loan of Rs.3 crores was promised after taking the policies cannot be accepted.
13. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant. First Appeal No.1859 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed. However, if the complainant wants to allege fraud and forgery in issuing the policies, he may approach the civil court and the liberty is granted for the same.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER