State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Renu Gupta vs Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 February, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013
Date of Decision : 26.02.2016
Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta
through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of
House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.
Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21,
First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants
Versus
Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its
concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana
Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware
House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal against order dated
26.03.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi) FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder.
The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi) FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder.
The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi) FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder.
The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi) FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder.
The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi) FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.546 of 2013
Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 Renu Gupta w/o Sh. Anoop Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Sharan Gupta s/o Sh. Devi Chand Gupta, resident House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhaina.
...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
............................................
AND 2) First Appeal No.547 of 2013 Date of Institution: 14.05.2013 Date of Decision : 26.02.2016 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 2 Shally Mittal w/o Sh. Manoj Gupta d/o Sh. Sharan Kumar Gupta through attorney Sharan Gupta s/o Devi Chand Gupta, resident of House No.21, First Floor, HIG Flats, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana ...Appellants/Complainants Versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer # 88,3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana Alternate Address :
2nd Floor, Paranjpe 'B' Scheme, Subash Road, Near Garware House, Vileparle (Estate), Mumbai 400057.
Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Shri. H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.P.M Goyal, Advocate
For respondent : None
.................................................
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred two connected first appeals, as they have arisen out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.03.2013. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.546 of 2013 titled as "Renu Gupta and another versus Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited".First Appeal No.546 of 2013 3
2. The appellants of first appeal no.546 of 2013 (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent civil court.
3. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of two life insurance policies bearing no.110913234439 dated 10.09.2011 and no.111113305481 dated 10.11.2011, whereas, complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainant by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 would have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his First Appeal No.546 of 2013 4 misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder.
The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below :-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay First Appeal No.546 of 2013 5 premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.1,78,167/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which requires elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant got 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies, on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 6 the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C- A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27-A. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. First Appeal no.547 of 2013 has been filed by the appellants of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint) against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
7. The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant no.1 is policyholder of life insurance policy bearing no.110813213111 dated 22.08.2011, First Appeal No.546 of 2013 7 whereas complainant no.2 is nominee of the policy. The OP managed to sell the policy to the complainants by using unfair trade practice and by giving false representation. Complainant no.2 is 71 years old and retiree from HVPNL (Haryana Viduyat Prasaran Nigam Ltd) with income of pension of Rs.4,00,000/- per year. Complainant no.2 was having insurance policy in Metlife. On 06.08.2011, Suresh Jain agent of OP talked to complainant no.2 that government was launching an IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund and he could get allotment of the said fund @ Rs.6.27. He further said that the said fund would reach to Rs.21/- within two months and the difference of the rate would be paid to complainant no.2 in the month of October 2011. Complainant no.2 will have to invest in some insurance policy to get allotment and further invest in IPO of Coal India Advantage Fund. On his misrepresentation, complainant no.2 agreed to purchase the said policy and Suresh Jain managed to get 17 cheques amounting to Rs.12,47,312/- from time to time. The complainant no.2 was the policyholder of 15 policies out of the above said 17 policies and in two policies, Prem Gupta w/o complainant no.2 was the policyholder. The detail of the all the 17 policies is given as below:-
Sr.No. Name of Company / Investment Policy Number Plan
1.` Future Generali Saral Anand 00862001
2. Future Generali Saral Anand 00869666
3. Future Generali Saral Anand 00860495
4. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676034866
5. Tata AIG Mahalife Gold C676093137
6. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02353862
7. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02363088
8. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02412922 First Appeal No.546 of 2013 8
9. Kotak Assured Income Plan 02414705
10. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19228421
11. Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan 19267005
12. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110813213111
13. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 110913234439
14. AEGON Religare Money Back Plan 111113305481
15. Birla Sunlife 005067031
16. Birla Sunlife 005078615
17. Bajaj Alliance 0230782073 Complainant no.2 started probing the matter and these facts came to his light that the insurance policies obtained through Suresh Jain are not one time investments, rather complainant no.2 will have to pay premium for all the policies to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- every year.
All policies are done by one broker namely Endeavour Insurance Broking Ltd and broker has received up to 50% to 60% commission from the total premium paid by the complainant no.2. The policies in question are in the name of the complainant no.1/daughter of complainant no.2. Complainant no.2 would have agreed to pay premium of Rs.12 lac every year, had it not been projected to him that it was not one time investment. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Legal notice was served upon OP by the complainant on 12.07.2012 through his counsel Sh. Rajnesh Mahajan, Advocate, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, prayed that directions be issued to OP to pay back Rs.76,000/- , as premium paid by him along with interest @ 24% p.a , besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in First Appeal No.546 of 2013 9 preliminary objections that the complainant got 17 policies from 6 insurance companies. The complainants are speculative investors. The matter cannot be examined by District Forum in summary manner, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication and needs to be adjudicated by competent court of law only. The complainant assailed 14 more policies, out of which, three issued under M/s Future Generali Sarai Anand, two policies issued under Tata AIG Mahalife Gold, four policies issued under Kotak Assured Income Plan, two policies issued under Reliance LIC Multiplier Plan and three policies issued under Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP issued the policies on the basis of information provided by the complainant only. The complainant had opted for annual mode of payment for renewal premium. There was free look period clause in the insurance policy and complainant has not opted out of the policy within 15 days from receipt of the policy. OP contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no fraud has been played with complainant. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has failed to exercise the option of free look period. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sharan Gupta Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jitin Pramodrai Parekh Authorized Representative of OPs Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion First Appeal No.546 of 2013 10 of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of respondent in the above-referred two appeals and hence we proceed to decide them on the basis of their merits.
11. The District Forum dismissed the above-referred two complaints by leaving the parties to avail their remedy before competent court of law. Only point involved in above-referred two first appeals is whether any misrepresentation was practiced upon the complainant by OP in obtaining the premium amount of the policies by repaying to be single premium policy or not? The submission of counsel for the complainants in this appeal is that Suresh Jain had managed to get the 17 cheques of Rs. 12,47,312 from time to time and sold 17 life insurance policies of different insurance companies in the name of complainant and his daughter Renu Gupta. Fraud has been committed upon complainants by the OP in these cases. It was submitted by counsel for complainants that had the true nature of the policies been disclosed that they were with annual premium, the complainants would not have opted to purchase them. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OP in the above-referred complaints is that the complainants willingly First Appeal No.546 of 2013 11 opted for the policy and very much knew about the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were conveyed to complainants and they have not exercise the option of free look period to opt out of the policy within 15 days period and hence terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance are binding upon the parties. The brief dispute between the parties is whether any misrepresentation has been practiced upon complainants by OP through their agent Suresh Jain in making complainants to believe that these were single time premium policies and not policy with annual premium.
12. Evidence on the record of both complaints have been examined by us. Vide Ex.C-1, the policy term is recorded as 16 years and premium payment term is recorded as 10 years. Ex.C-2 is legal notice sent by complainants to OP. Ex.C-3 is postal receipt of legal notice. Ex.C-4 is deed of special power of attorney. Ex.C-6 is the proposal form and frequency of premium payment is yearly and no single premium is recorded in the proposal form on the record. Proposal form Ex.C-6 is signed by complainant Renu Gupta and declaration has been made about it, as contained in it. The District Forum has not decided the controversy on the ground that matter needs elaborate evidence. We are of this view that matter is not so complex, as not to be determined by Consumer Fora. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dr.J.J Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC) that State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired Judges and First Appeal No.546 of 2013 12 they are competent to decide complex issue of law or facts. Not proper to hold where negligence of experts alleged, consumers should approach civil court. Since Consumer Fora are presided over by Retired Judicial Officers and hence the Consumer Forum cannot shy away from deciding the case, simply on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On the basis of law laid down in the above-referred authority, we find that matter cannot be said to be so complex as not be decided by the Consumer Forum. The order of the District Forum in relegating the parties to civil court is not sustainable in our view.
13. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the First Appeal No.546 of 2013 and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
14. Similarly, we accept the First Appeal No.547 of 2013 and by setting the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 26.03.2013 remand the case to District Forum Ludhiana for fresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum shall procure the presence of the parties in this appeal before deciding the matter on merits.
15. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 24.02.2016 and the orders were reserved. Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.546 of 2013 13
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER February 26, 2016 (Ravi)