State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Kumar vs The Hdfc Bank on 24 August, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Applications No.1640 & 2574 of 2019
In/and
Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019
Date of institution : 12.03.2019
Reserved On : 27.07.2022
Date of decision : 24.08.2022
1. Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Bishan Dass, permanent resident of
House No.295, Ward No.12, Kainthan, Dasuya, District
Hoshiarpur, through Special Power of Attorney holder Sh.
Anurag Rakhra son of Sh. Vijay Kumar.
2. Promila Devi wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar, permanent resident of
House No.177, Ward No.12, near Radha Krishan Mandir,
Kainthan, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
3. Neeraj Rakhra son of Sh. Vijay Kumar, resident of House
No.177, Ward No.12, near Radha Krishan Mandir, Kainthan,
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
4. Jiwan Jyoti wife of Sh. Anurag Rakhra, resident of House
No.177, Ward No.12, near Radha Krishan Mandir, Kainthan,
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
5. Anurag Rakhra son of Sh. Vijay Kumar, resident of House
No.177, Ward No.12, near Radha Krishan Mandir, Kainthan,
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
....Complainants
Versus
1. The HDFC Bank, Main G.T. Road, Dasuya, G.T. Road, near LIC,
Dasuya, Punjab, 144205, through its Branch Manager.
2. The Managing Director, the HDFC Bank having Registered
Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013,
having Landmark HDFC Bank House.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17
(wrongly mentioned in the complaint as
Section 12) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 2
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:
For the complainants : Sh. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The complainants namely Vijay Kumar (through his Special Power of Attorney holder Sh. Anurag Rakhra), Promila Devi, Neeraj Rakhra, Jiwan Jyoti and Anurag Rakhra have filed the present complaint against the opposite parties i.e. HDFC Bank and The Managing Director, HDFC Bank under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned in the complaint under Section 12) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be refereed as the "The Act") by alleging certain allegations of cheating, 'unfair trade practice' and also 'deficiency in service' stating that complainant No.1 opened an account with opposite party No.1-Bank on 02.02.2012 which was in the joint names of complainant No.1 (Vijay Kumar) and his son complainant No.3 (Neeraj Rakhra), who was residing abroad. An amount of ₹69 lac, which was stated to be their hard earned money, was deposited in the said account on 02.02.2012 to earn the maximum return. The officials of the Bank persuaded the complainant to invest the said amount in four different Life Insurance Policies to get maximum return. One Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 3 policy was issued in the name of complainant No.2 and the other was issued in the name of complainant No.3. The remaining 2 policies were issued in the name of complainant No.1. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the opposite parties had represented that whatever amount was to be given by way of interest, the same would be diverted towards premium of the policies. The details of said four policies are as under:
Sr. No. Policy No. Date Name Amount in
₹
1. 151617777 14.05.2012 Promila Devi 5,00,000/-
wife of Vijay
Kumar
2. 15495656 10.10.2012 Vijay Kumar 12,00,000/-
son of
Bishan Dass
3. 15327310 29.07.2012 Vijay Kumar 8,00,000/-
son of
Bishan Dass
4. 15269434 04.07.2012 Vijay Kumar 1,50,000/-
son of
Bishan Dass
2. Apart from said 4 policies, 6 more policies were also issued in favour of the complainant Vijay Kumar and his family members through deceptive means. The complainants came to know about those policies for the first time in the year 2016. The details of said policies are as under:
Sr. Policy No. Date Name Amount in ₹
No.
1. 14930054 19.02.2012 Promila Devi 5,00,000/-
wife of Vijay
Kumar
2. 14910597 06.02.2015 Neeraj 5,00,000/-
Rakhra son
of Vijay
Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 4
Kumar
3. 15160893 14.05.2012 Jivan Jyoti 4,00,000/-
wife of
Anurag
Rakha
4. 15038317 23.03.2012 Jivan Jyoti 5,00,000/-
wife of
Anurag
Rakha
5. 15160924 16.05.2012 Anurag 5,00,000/-
Rakhra son
of Bishan
Dass
Rakhra
6. 15011683 23.03.2012 Anurag 10,00,000/-
Rakhra son
of Bishan
Dass
Rakhra
3. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the applications and proposal forms of said policies were filled up and got signed in the names of the complainants by the Bank officials themselves at a number of places, date of birth, mobile number and signatures were forged. It is further mentioned in the complaint that an amount of ₹10,90,000/- was deposited by the complainant Vijay Kumar on 03.10.2012 in his account and further a sum of ₹30,000/- was deposited on 28.06.2012, which is evident from the vouchers issued by the opposite party Bank. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the Statement of Account was reflecting the amount but said amount was never credited in the account of complainants, which was an act of deliberate misappropriation of the amount so deposited by the complainant Vijay Kumar. It is further mentioned that the complainant made a representation to the opposite party No.2 dated 02.08.2016 Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 5 mentioning certain allegations of forgery and misappropriation of the amount by the Bank officials. Certain allegations were also levelled against the Branch Manager namely Rohit Thakur and Deputy Manager namely Amit Kumar of Dasuya Branch. Said representation is annexed with the complaint as Ex.C-10. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members wrote/sent a number of letters for cancellation of said policies. The opposite party Bank also issued six letters on 03.11.2016 (Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-20) in respect of various policies by informing that the Bank had initiated the refund process after cancelation of the policies.
4. It is further mentioned in the complaint that a letter dated 08.11.2016 (Ex.C-21) was served upon opposite party No.2 by the complainants whereby the Bank was asked to provide the complete compounded interest upon the amount so deposited on the ground that it was wrongly invested in the Life Insurance Policies.
5. It is further mentioned in the complaint that by considering the allegations of cheating and forgery by the Bank officials, the Hoshiarpur Police lodged FIR No.25 dated 11.03.2017 at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur under Section 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Section 2 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Ex.C-22).
6. It is further mentioned that complainant No.1 through his Power of Attorney pursued the case before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh, stating that an amount of ₹69 lac was deposited, whereas only an amount of ₹59,08,760/- was received Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 6 and that too without any interest. The entire principal amount which was deposited was not refunded as mentioned in the representation dated 26.07.2017 (Ex.C-23). The details showing the principal amount plus interest on the said policies along with calculation was mentioned in the document Ex.C-24. It is further mentioned in the complaint that due to loss of money at the hands of the Bank officials, the complainants exchanged a number of correspondences through electronic means due to which all family members of the complainant faced agony and mental suffering. No reason was explained as to why the huge amount towards principal and interest was not returned. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the opposite party Bank promised/offered an annual interest @ 9.75% for the first year upon the amount so deposited and thereafter the interest was @ 9.50% for the 2nd year and thereafter the rate of interest was 9.25% for the 3rd year and in the next years it was 9% and 8.5%. The complainants would have earned annual interest at the rate of 9.10% on the deposited amount and after a period of 5 years, the amount could have been much more. An amount of ₹36,01,156.91 was payable as interest on the principal amount of ₹69 lac. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the opposite parties withheld an amount of ₹9,91,240/- out of total deposited amount of ₹69 lac and also an amount of ₹36,01,156.91 which was payable as interest by the Bank after a period of five years. The complainants were entitled to receive a total sum of ₹45,92,396/- from the Bank along with exemplary compensation and damages.Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 7
7. The complaint was filed with the prayer that an amount of ₹45,92,396/- be paid to the complainants along with exemplary compensation and damages.
8. Notices of the complaint were issued to the opposite parties. In response to said notices, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written reply on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that the complaint was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed as no cause of action had ever arisen in favour of the complainants to file the complaint against the opposite parties. The complaint has been stated to be an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is also mentioned in the reply that false averments have been made in the complaint just to misguide/mislead this Commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also mentioned in the reply that certain allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery/forging of signatures, deceit, misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds etc. have been levelled by the complainants against the Bank officials but they have not been impleaded as parties. It is further mentioned in the reply that for proving the above said allegations, elaborate evidence is required which is not practically possible in summary trial before this Commission. The order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Panna Lal Kankaria & Sons v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2015 (12) RCR (Civil) 572 has also been relied upon in the reply. It is further mentioned in the reply that FIR lodged against the Bank officials is still Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 8 pending under consideration. It is further mentioned that there are no signatures of complainants No.2 to 4 on the Power of Attorney and the complaint is also liable to be dismissed being not maintainable on this score as well. It is also mentioned in the reply that the complaint has been filed jointly for seeking the same relief but no such application has been filed under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act for seeking permission to file the joint complaint. Further, it has been mentioned in the reply that the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands. They were given 15 days' time and policy documents supplied to them could have been returned including the policies to the Insurance Company with the reasons but no such option was ever exercised by the complainants. The complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the cause of action arose on 11.08.2016 whereas the complaint was filed on 12.03.2019 i.e. after the period of 2 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action.
Earlier also the complainants filed the Consumer Complaint before this Commission, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint but still no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay and the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed being barred by time in view of the provisions of Section 24- A of the Act. It has further been mentioned in the reply that complainant No.1 for the first time approached the opposite parties vide complaint dated 02.08.2016 with the prayer to cancel the Insurance Policies on the ground that out of total 10 policies, only 4 were issued by the Insurance Company and certain documents were Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 9 forged. It was also requested by complainant No.1 that all the 10 policies be got cancelled and the premium amount be refunded along with interest. The matter was considered by the opposite parties including Bank and the Insurance Company and it was found the complainants were well aware about the issuance of all the 10 Insurance Policies out of which 6 policies were admitted in so many words. The complainants were also aware about the payment of annual premium amount deducted from their Bank account through the Direct Debit Mandate over a period of 3 years but still no grievance was ever raised. By considering it as a special case, the Insurance Policies of the complainants were got cancelled by the opposite parties. An amount of ₹59,08,760/- was refunded towards the premium received in 9 policies and Saving Bank Account interest was also paid on 4 policies which were alleged to be issued without the knowledge of the complainants. It has further been mentioned in the reply that 10th Insurance Policy was surrendered by complainant No.1 himself and surrender value qua the said policy i.e. ₹5,84,909/- was also received by the complainants. It has further been mentioned in the reply that the complainants instead of approaching the Civil Court have filed the present complaint with malafide intention just to save the Court Fee. Not only the wrong averments have been made in the complaint but the picture has been reflected with distorted and twisted facts just to misuse and confuse this Commission. It has further been mentioned that there is no misappropriation of funds on behalf of the opposite party Bank or its officials as the complainants have themselves Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 10 admitted about the issuance of 6 Insurance Policies in the complaint and the allegations are against the alleged 4 policies only. The details regarding cancelled policies and refund of the amount have been mentioned in Para-8 of the reply on merits, which are reproduced as under:
Sr. No. Policy No. Name of Date of Amount
Policy request for paid after
Holder braking of discharge
Policy of policy
1. 15160924 Anurag 11.08.2016 ₹4,97,079/-
Rakhra
2. 15011683 Anurag 11.08.2016 ₹10,00,540/-
Rakhra
3. 15160893 Jiwan Jyoti Did not raise ₹5,84,000/-
the request
to cancel
4. 15038317 Jiwan Jyoti 11.08.2016 ₹5,00,600/-
5. 14910597 Neeraj 15.11.2016 ₹4,99,997/-
Rakhra
6. 14930054 Promila 08.09.2016 ₹5,16,165/-
Devi
7. 15161777 Promila 08.09.2016 ₹5,05,600/-
Devi
8. 15327310 Vijay Kumar 08.09.2016 ₹7,91,424/-
9. 15269434 Vijay Kumar 08.09.2016 ₹1,48,360/-
10. 15495656 Vijay Kumar 08.09.2016 ₹11,88,048/-
Plus interest ₹2,89,943.54
@ 4% on 4
policies
Total ₹65,21,756/-
9. All other averments made in the complaint have specifically been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed.
10. Rejoinder was also filed by the complainants, wherein the Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 11 averments made in the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted.
11. Both the parties have produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions.
12. Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, learned counsel for the complainants submits that the complainants have been harassed and cheated by forging the documents by putting forged signatures on the application/proposal forms. There are specific allegations of cheating and forgery committed by the officials of the opposite party Bank. The allegations were serious in nature and it was the duty of the Banking Ombudsman to take a criminal action against the employees of the Bank who committed the criminal act failing which the complainants had to approach the police authorities by way of filing a complaint on the basis of which FIR No.25 dated 11.03.2017 was registered at Police Station, Dasuya under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 2 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial of said FIR is still pending before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of ratio of judgments of various Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint cannot be dismissed on technical ground or on the ground that the proceedings before the Consumer Courts/Commissions are summary in nature. In a number of cases and even in case of summary trial, the complicated and disputed questions of facts and law have been decided by holding that the Consumer Forums/Commissions should not dismiss the complaints on technical grounds by saying that disputed questions of facts are there and as Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 12 such the Consumer Commission having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in case of allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating are there. Learned counsel further submits that the complainants are customers of the opposite party Bank and they fall within the purview of definition of 'consumer' as provided under Section 2 of the Act in case there are allegations of illegal acts at the instance of the 'service provider' or the Banks are pressurizing or alluring its customers by way of different methods. Learned counsel has also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank I (2010) CPJ 312 (NC) in support of his contentions.
13. Mr. Nitin Thatai, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the disputed questions of law and facts are involved and certain allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery/forging of signatures, deceit, misappropriation of funds etc. have been levelled by the complainants against the Bank officials. By considering the disputed questions of law and facts, all the allegations levelled in the complaint cannot be decided in summary trial. For proving said allegations, the elaborate/concrete evidence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses are required and the same is not practically possible before this Commission as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Panna Lal Kankaria (supra), wherein it has been held that any civil nature dispute which requires elaborate evidence and entails complicated and intricate questions of forgery, Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 13 misrepresentation and settlement of accounts, cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora/Commission in the summary trial. Learned counsel further submits that the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands as the policy documents were delivered to them and they were at liberty to return the same within a period of 15 days but no such option was exercised by them within the said period. Nowhere it has been mentioned by the complainants that they did not receive the policy documents qua all the Insurance Policies. Even from the years 2012 to 2015, the annual premiums were deducted from the Bank accounts of the complainants and they never raised any grievance. Learned counsel also submits that the cause of action arose to the complainants on 11.08.2016 but the complaint was filed on 12.03.2019 which was after a period of more than two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Even earlier, the complaint was filed by the complainants before this Commission but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. Learned counsel further submits that complainant No.1 for the first time approached the opposite parties vide complaint dated 20.08.2016 with the prayer to cancel the policies on the ground that only 4 policies were issued whereas there were total 10 policies and certain documents were forged. A request was made by complainants that all the 10 policies be got cancelled and premium amount be refunded along with interest. The case of the complainants was sent to the concerned Branch so that by considering it as a special case, the Insurance Policies could be cancelled and the complainants could Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 14 have been refunded the amount of premiums. However, it was found that the amount of annual premiums was deducted from the Bank account through Direct Debit Mandate for a period of 3 years and the complainants chose to keep mum and thereafter the policies were cancelled. Even an amount of ₹59,08,760/- was refunded towards the premium received in 9 policies and Saving Bank Account interest was also paid on 4 policies which were alleged to be issued without the knowledge of the complainants. Even the 10th Insurance Policy was surrendered by complainant No.1 himself and the surrender value qua said policy was also received by the complainants. Learned counsel has relied upon following cases in support of his contentions:
i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel Civil Appeal No.4091 of 2006 decided on 12.09.2006 (SC);
ii) Mittal Education Society v. Indian Overseas Bank Consumer Complaint No.646 of 2017 decided on 06.11.2017 (NC);
iii) Devraj Kishore Das v. Chief Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal No.1859 of 2017 decided on 13.07.2018;
iv) District Transport Officer v. Amita Goyal R.P. No.2307 of 2012 decided on 05.10.2015 (NC);
v) P.N. Khanna v. Bank of India & Anr. F.A. No.9 of 2015 decided on 29.01.2015 (NC);
vi) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Shankar Chawal RP No.4315 of 2012 decided on 20.05.2015 (NC);
vii) Bright Transport Co. v. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. CC No.286 & 287 of 2011 decided on 12.01.2012 (NC); and
viii) Capital Charitable & Education Society v. Axis Bank Ltd. CC No.269 of 2017 decided on 09.12.2019 (NC).
14. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for both Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 15 the parties. We have also carefully perused the averments of the complaint filed by the complainants as well as the reply thereof, the documents annexed with the complaint and the reply and also the written submissions filed by both the parties.
15. On perusal of the complaint filed by the complainants, it is apparent that in the very beginning of the complaint, it has been stated that complainant No.1 went to deposit an amount of ₹69 lac in cash in his Bank Account maintained with the said Bank. The employees of the Bank compelled him to invest the said amount in 4 Insurance Policies. It has further been alleged that complainant No.1 had invested in 4 Life Insurance Policies but still the Bank officials by forging and fabricating the signatures of complainant No.1 as well as his family members issued 6 more Life Insurance Policies without the knowledge and consent of the complainants.
16. Therefore, it is apparent that certain allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery/forging of signatures, deceit, misappropriation of funds etc. have been levelled by the complainants against the Bank and its officials but the alleged employees of the Bank have not been arrayed as opposite parties in the complaint. All record is with the opposite party Bank and policies are also with the Bank. Such allegations made by the complainants are a matter of elaborate evidence and in the absence of those officials of the Bank, the same cannot be rebutted/proved. No doubt the opposite party Bank has stated in the reply that the allegations levelled by the complainants are false but who has forged the Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 16 signatures are not before us. Even in case of any doubt, elaborate evidence is required to be produced and especially in the case of forging of signatures, specific signatures of the person who has forged the signatures and whose signatures have been forged are required to appear before the Court for the purpose of comparison of the same by the skilled handwriting expert. The fact as to who has filled up the application forms and who have appended signatures thereon is also to be investigated thoroughly. No sample of handwriting of any person is before us. A stand has been taken by the Bank that certain amount has been paid which has been duly accepted by the complainants or deposited in their Bank Account. It is also to be seen as to what was the amount which was deposited and how that amount was adjusted in the payment of premiums towards the policies. For proving such allegations, detailed/elaborate evidence is required to be adduced. Whenever a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read over and understood the document properly and thereafter he/she has affixed his/her signatures.
17. It is also relevant to mention that FIR No.25 dated 11.03.2017 was registered against some of the Bank officials at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur under Sections 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Section 2 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the matter is still pending in the trial Court. In the said FIR also, serious allegations of forgery/forging of signatures, fabrication of documents, fraud etc. have been levelled against the Bank officials. Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 17
18. The order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Capital Charitable & Education Society (supra) is relevant in the present context as the dispute was of the amount deposited with the Bank. The amount was withdrawn by using certain cheques which were not issued and signed by the complainant but still the amount was withdrawn out of the Bank account of the complainants illegally and malafidely. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in case of forgery and fraud, the Consumer Forum/Commission cannot look into the matter and the complaint was required to be filed before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. In the above said case, reliance was placed by the Hon'ble National Commission on its earlier order passed in the case of Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein the following observations have been made:
"3. Yet another reason why we would discourage the complainant from approaching this Commission is that as per the complainants there are several acts of forgery for which a criminal trial is pending. The said case is yet to be decided and the decision of the criminal cases may have a bearing on the claims made by the complainants in these complaints. This Commission has consistently taken the view in the past that complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission."
19. In one more judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of TRAI Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Company & Ors. III(2012) CP 17 (SC) has observed as under:
"6. The only question to be decided is, when should this Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 18 jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission. In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy. The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object. They were not meant to duplicate the Civil Court, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts."
20. Another aspect of the matter is that the policies were issued in the year 2012. The representation regarding alleged misappropriation of the amount deposited by the complainants was made only on 02.08.2016 i.e. after about 4 years from the date of issuance of the policies. It is not the case of the complainants that the documents of the policies were not delivered to them. After receipt of the policy documents, the complainants/insured persons were at liberty to exercise the 'Free Look Option' to review the terms and conditions of the policies or cancel the policies within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the polices by mentioning the reasons but in the present case, no such option was ever exercised by the complainants.
21. As per judgments of case Prema & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) and Kishore Chandrakant Rathod v. MD ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. RP No.3390 of 2013 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 21.05.2014, the onus was on the complainants to read all Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 19 the contents of policy documents and terms and conditions thereof. The complainants are bound by the policy contract as they gave up/relinquished/waived off their right by not exercising the "Free Look Period" option.
22. In other judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission of cases Mohan Lal Benal v. ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. RP No.2870 of 2012 decided on 16.10.2012 and R.P. No.3271 of 2013 (Harish Kumar Chadha v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 07.10.2013, it has been held that in case the insured/complainant is not satisfied with the policy taken, then he/she should avail the option of returning the policy with a period of 15 days of receipt i.e. "Free Look Period".
23. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above as well as in view of the law laid down in the above said authorities, we are of the considered view that the allegations of fraud, forgery/forging of signatures, deceit, misappropriation of funds, cheating etc. cannot be proved before this Commission being summary proceedings as the elaborate and concrete evidence including examination-in-chief and cross examination of the witnesses as well as examination of specimen signatures of the relevant persons by the handwriting expert are required to prove same, which can be done only in the Civil Court. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants is distinguishable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as in view of the law laid down in the authorities as discussed above.
Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 20
24. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission as disputed questions of facts and law are involved therein for which detailed/elaborate evidence as well as cross examination of witnesses etc. are required which can be done only in the Civil Court.
25. However, the liberty is granted to the complainants to approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances as mentioned in the present complaint. The complainants shall be entitled to get benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period of pendency of this complaint before this Commission i.e. from 12.03.2019 till disposal thereof by this Commission.
26. The opposite parties had filed Misc. Application No.1640 of 2019 for dismissal of the complaint during the pendency of proceedings, which was kept pending to be disposed of along with the main case. Since the complaint has been dismissed, so the said application also stands disposed of.
27. After raising objection by the opposite parties in their reply, the complainants have filed Misc. Application No.2754 of 2019 under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act seeking permission to file the complaint jointly on behalf of complainants No.1 & 5. However, since the complaint has been dismissed with the aforesaid observations, so we need not to comment on the said application.
28. Since the main case has been disposed of, so other pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are also accordingly Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019 21 disposed of.
29. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-
19. (JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER August 24, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)