State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Parkash Gagneja vs 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. ... on 19 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 405 of 2013 Date of Institution : 16.09.2013 Date of Decision : 19/09/2013 Om Parkash Gagneja s/o Sh. Nand Lal Gagneja, Aged 76 years, R/o H.No.417, Sector 37-A,Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Unit No.102, 1st Floor, Nomura B Hiranandani, Business Park Pawai, Mumbai 400076 India and others. 2. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No. 2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. 3. Jai Laxmi Agency through Agent Sh. Amreswar Nayak, Code 10016761, SCO No.8, Sector 7, Chandigarh. Now shifted to SCO 841, NAC Manimajra ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The case set up by the complainant was to the effect, that, in August 2011, Mr. Abhishek Nayyer, Dr. J.P.S. Rawat and Mr. Tarlochan Verma, representing themselves, to be the Officers of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), contacted him and allured him that they would get his money invested, in the Policies, with four different Companies, matured before the maturity date, as per its (IRDA) Guidelines, for which he would have to pay only one premium. The complainant was also assured that he would get a sum of Rs.40.00 lacs, and the bonus accrued on it. According to the complainant, the aforementioned persons got signed from him, various forms/blank papers, without disclosing the contents thereof, and, ultimately, issued Policy No. 110913268429 dated 01.10.2011, for a period of 16 years, for the total insured amount of Rs.8,82,740/-, for the premium payment term/period of 10 years, with annual premium of Rs.1 lac, in his favour, by playing fraud upon him. The date of payment of last premium, in respect of the said Policy, was 01.10.2020 and date of maturity of the same was 30.09.2027.
The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1 lac, on account of one annual premium, in respect of the said Policy. It was stated that the complainant was kept, in dark, and was not even made aware, that if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, in question, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof. It was further stated that the said key feature, came to the knowledge of the complainant, after the free-look-period of the Policy had expired. On receipt of the Policy Schedule, Annexure C-2, the complainant tried to approach the Officers of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, who again misrepresented him, by stating that he would get his Policy back, as promised, but he raised objection, that the same (Policy) had been sold with complete misrepresentation and asked them to get the same (Policy) cancelled. The first request for cancellation of the Policy, in question, was made by the complainant, on 09.01.2012 vide Annexure C-3. Thereafter, the reminders were sent to the Opposite Parties, by the complainant, for cancellation of the Policy, in question, but his request was turned down, on the ground, that since he had not applied for cancellation of the same, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same (Policy documents), it could not be cancelled. It was further stated that the refund of amount of premium, was not made to the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to cancel the Policy, in question, and refund the amount of Rs.1 lac, alongwith interest @15% P.A.; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the Policy, in question, was issued to the complainant, on the basis of the proposal form dated 28.09.2011, signed by him. It was stated that the complainant received the Policy documents, on 15.11.2011. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof, but he did not do so. It was denied that the complainant ever approached Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, with any grievance, that the information incorporated in the proposal form was incorrect. It was further admitted that the complainant made representation, for refund of premium, only after the expiry of free-look-period. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, no cancellation of the same, could be made, after the expiry of free-look period. It was further stated that since the complainant had paid only one premium, in respect of the Policy, in question, the same did not acquire any surrender value/paid up value. It was further stated that the Policy could have acquired surrender value/paid up value, only if the complainant had paid three consecutive annual premiums. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that the complainant issued a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in the name of Opposite Party No.1, as premium, and, in lieu thereof, the said Policy was issued in his favour. It was further stated that the complainant, himself, admitted that he held a number of Insurance Policies of various Companies, and was fully conversant, with the Insurance law. It was further stated that the Insurance Policy was issued, in favour of the complainant, on the basis of proposal form, signed by him. It was denied that any blank papers were got signed, from the complainant, by any Official of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof, but he did not do so. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant/complainant, was not made aware of the terms and conditions of the Policy, to the effect, that, in case, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof. He further submitted that, the complainant was misrepresented the facts, by the aforesaid Officers of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. He further submitted that the Officers/Agents of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 played fraud, with the complainant, as also cheated him, by making a misrepresentation, and thereby mis-selling the Policy. He further submitted that according to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies), Regulations 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as the IRDA Regulations 2010 only), the Opposite Parties were liable to consider the Policy, as a discontinued one, and should have refunded the amount of premium, after making some deductions, as stipulated in the same, but they did not do so. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice, but the District Forum did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and law, on the point, in a proper manner, resulting into passing of the illegal order
10. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, any fraud was played by the aforesaid Officers/Agents of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, with the complainant, by allegedly misrepresenting the facts, to him, or not. The complainant is a retired Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department, from the State of Haryana. He is a well educated person. Copy of the proposal form, in respect of the Policy, in question, is at pages 28 to 34. In the proposal form, the main features of the Policy were duly mentioned. It is evident, from the proposal form, that the Policy was for a term of 16 years, whereas, the premium paying term was 10 years. The frequency of payment of premiums was yearly, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, and the sum insured was to the tune of Rs.8,82,740/-. In this proposal form, details with regard to the remaining Policies, obtained by the complainant, from the Insurance Companies, were also mentioned. This proposal form was duly signed by the complainant, on 28.09.2011, at Chandigarh. As stated above, the complainant, being a retired Senior Government Officer, from the State of Haryana, and well educated, could not be expected to sign the proposal form, when it was blank. Once the complainant signed the proposal form, it could very well be presumed, that he signed the same, after going through the contents thereof. In Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, (2010) 1 SCC 83, it was held that, once a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he had read the document properly, and understood it, and only then he had affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signatures on a document, could ever be accepted. No cogent and convincing evidence, was produced, by the complainant, as to, in which manner, the fraud was allegedly played upon him. No cogent and convincing evidence was also produced, on the record, by the complainant, to prove the manner, in which misrepresentation was made to him. It is, therefore, held that the proposal form, was signed by the complainant, of his own free volition, with eyes wide open, after understanding the main features of the Policy, contained therein. The possibility of playing fraud with the complainant, by misrepresenting the facts to him, therefore, could be completely ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was made aware of the factum, that, in case, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof. In the District Forum, the complainant moved an application dated 26.11.2012, mentioning therein certain questions, reply whereof was sought from Opposite Party No.3. Reply to the said application was filed by Opposite Party No.3, by answering the questions, in the following manner:-
No. Questions Answers
1.
What type of document was brought when Courier boy of agent visited the complainant for the first time?
In a reply to question one, only the terms and conditions/ brochure/product of the Company were shown/handed over to the interested party, and the said document do not belongs to OP-3
2. Whether any signatures of the complainant were obtained on terms and conditions of policy. If it is so, then show the signatures of the complainant on the said document?
In a reply to question two, the complainant signed the proposal form voluntarily with free consent
3. Whether any terms and conditions of policy were shown to the complainant before getting his signature on the proposal form? If it is so, then show the signatures of complainant on the said document In a reply to question three, the complainant was shown and explained the terms and conditions of the policy before getting his signatures on the proposal form which is in the custody of the Insurance Company OP-1 & 2, and also available in the proposal form attached therein.
4. Whether the condition of free look period was brought to the notice of complainant at the time of signatures on the proposal form. If it is so, then show the signatures of complainant on said document showing that the condition of free look period was read over the complainant and he understood the same?
In a reply to question four, the condition of freelook period was brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of signatures on the proposal form and when he accepted the terms and condition, signed the proposal form and he paid the premium, which is deposited with the Insurance Company (OP-1&2).
5. Whether the signature of the complainant was obtained on investment chart As per IRDA Guidelines showing the investment being made at that time and amount of maturity he would get? If it is so, then produce said document In a reply to question five, The complainant has signed all the documents including the proposal form and chart after going through the contents, as explained and as he has accepted the same with his free consent and subsequently amount of cheque/cash was deposited with the principal (Company OP-1 & 2) and the answering respondent (OP-3) has nothing to do with the said premium and as such there is a valid contract between the complainant and OP-1 & 2.
12. From the afore-extracted answers, to the questions, given by Opposite Party No.3, it is evident that the terms and conditions/brochure/product of the Company were handed over to interested party. It is further evident, that the complainant signed the proposal form, voluntarily, with free consent. In answer to question number 3, it was stated by Opposite Party No.3, that the complainant was shown and explained the terms and conditions of Policy, before obtaining his signatures, on the proposal form, which was in the custody of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The key features of the Policy are also available, in the said proposal form. In reply to question number 4, it was specifically stated by Opposite Party No.3, that the condition of free-look-period, was explained to the complainant, at the time of taking signatures of the complainant, on the proposal form, and when he (complainant) accepted the terms and conditions, he signed the same (proposal form) and paid the premium, which was deposited with Opposite Parties No.1 and
2. In reply to question number 5, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated by Opposite Party No.3, that the complainant signed all the documents, including proposal form, after going through the contents of the same, as he accepted the same, of his free consent and subsequently, cheque/cash, was deposited with the principal i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It is evident, from the answers, given by Opposite Party No.3, to the questions posed to it, by the complainant, that he (complainant) was clearly made aware with regard to the key features of the Policy. He was also made aware that if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could return the same, during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same, and ask for cancellation thereof. Not only this, the Policy Schedule/document had also been admittedly received by the complainant. According to Clause 2.5 of the Policy Schedule/document, free-look-period option was given to the complainant. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the complainant was not aware of the free-look-period, and, thus, he could not exercise this option, during the same, for cancellation of the Policy. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, were liable to cancel the Policy, on the basis of the request made by the complainant, on 09.01.2012 vide Annexure C-3, and refund the amount of premium to him. Clause 2.5 of the Policy Schedule/document Annexure C-2, reads as under:-
2.5 Free Look Option.
In case of disagreement with any of the terms and conditions of the Policy, You may return the Policy along with a letter stating the reasons for disagreement within a period of fifteen days of receipt of the Policy Document (the free look period). The Policy will be cancelled and an amount equal to the following will be paid to You. :
Sum of the Policy Premium paid;
Less Stamp Duty paid on the Policy;
Less proportionate mortality charge; and Less any expenses borne by the Company for medical examination.
The Policy and all the rights under the Policy shall stand extinguished immediately on the cancellation of the Policy under the free look option.
14. The Policy document was received by the complainant, on 15.11.2011. He could make a request, in writing, to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 15 days, for cancellation of the same (Policy), from the date of receipt of the same. As stated above, for the first time, the complainant submitted an application Annexure C-3 dated 09.01.2012, for cancellation of the Policy. Since, the request for cancellation of the Policy was made, beyond the free-look-period of 15 days, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, could not cancel the same, in contravention of the terms and conditions thereof. Since, the request for cancellation of the Policy was made, beyond the free-look-period of 15 days, by not cancelling the same, and not refunding the amount, to the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Policy, in question, could be treated as a discontinued one, according to the IRDA Regulations 2010. It may be stated here, that the aforesaid Regulations, only covered Linked Insurance Policies. The Policy, in this case, was not a Linked Insurance one. On the other hand, according to Clause 2.1. of the Policy Schedule/document, it was AEGON Religare Money Back Plus Plan. It was, thus, a non- Linked Insurance Policy. In other words, it could be said to be a traditional Policy. The aforesaid IRDA Regulations 2010 were, thus, not applicable to the Policy, in question. By not treating the Policy, as a discontinued one, under the aforesaid IRDA Regulations 2010, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion Pronounced.
September 19, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg