State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Gursharan Singh vs 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance ... on 21 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 184 of 2014 Date of Institution : 19.05.2014 Date of Decision : 21/05/2014 1. Gursharan Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh; 2. Jatinder Singh s/o Sh. Gursharan Singh; Both residents of H.No.980, HIG, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Appellants/complainants V e r s u s 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, SCO No.2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative. 2. Authorized Representative, Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, SCO No. 2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. 3. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, Nomura, B-Wing, First Floor, Unit No.102, Near D-Mart, Hiranandani Business Park, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. 4. Managing Director, Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, Nomura, B-Wing, First Floor, Unit No.102, Near D-Mart, Hiranandani Business Park, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai. 5. Sh. Umesh Debey, Agent, Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, SCO No. 2417-18, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. 6. Endeavour Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., 205, Chokhani Square, P-4, Sector 18, Noida 201301, through its authorized representative. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2014, 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 complainants (now appellants).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants purchased three Policies, from the Opposite Parties, as under:-
SNo.
Policy No. Sum Assured Total Premium Policy Term
01.
120613548811 Rs.22,10,525/-
Rs.280000.00 17 Yrs
02. 120613546258 Rs.19,77,631/-
Rs.250500.00 17 Yrs
03. 120613541164 Rs.7,89,477/-
Rs.100000.00 17 Yrs
3. According to complainant No.1, he had arranged money from his own sources, as well as by borrowing the same, from his relatives. It was stated that the Opposite Parties never asked complainant No.2, either for his PAN No. or copy of the Income Tax Return (ITR). It was further stated that complainant No.1 had already provided his PAN card and showed his Income Tax Return, depicting the annual income to the tune of Rs.3,17,474/-, to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the proposal forms were filled in by the Agent (Opposite Party No.5) of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. According to the complainants, they were informed by the Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, that they had to pay the premium only once and handsome returns were expected. It was further stated that income of the complainants, in the proposal forms was also shown wrongly.
4. It was further stated that, complainant No.1 had disclosed that his son i.e. complainant No.2 was working as a Security Guard, in Swift Securities Ltd., drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Opposite Parties had mentioned, in the proposal form, against his name, that he was an Executive, in a Construction Company. It was further stated that fake ITRs had been prepared by the Opposite Parties, to procure the Policies of the complainants. It was further stated that monthly pension of complainant No.1 is Rs.1039/- per month, which had been mentioned as Rs.3.5 lacs per annum, in the application form by the aforesaid Agent. It was further stated that though complainant No. 2 earned Rs.6,000/- per month, yet, his income had been shown as Rs.2.5 lacs per annum, in the application form.
5. It was further stated that the Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, made misleading representations, to the complainants, for fetching high commission. Accordingly, the complainants asked the Opposite Parties, to cancel the Policies, and refund the amount thereof. It was further stated that, in the first instance, the request of the complainants was not acceded to. It was further stated that, ultimately, after so many complaints, made by complainant No.1, Opposite Party No.3, refunded the amount of all the Policies, vide letter dated 15.01.2013, without any interest or compensation. 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 complainants, 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 Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, to pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Policies, referred to above, in favour of the complainants. It was stated that the complainants had signed the applications and proposal forms, of their own free will and consent. It was denied that any misleading representation was made to the complainants, with regard to high returns. It was also denied that the income tax returns aforesaid, were forged by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. It was further stated that, on representation made by the complainants, all the three Policies were cancelled and the amount was refunded to them, vide letter dated 15.01.2013 Annexure R-2. It was further stated that before the refund of amount, request-cum-consent letter dated 31.12.2012, Annexure R-1 was submitted by the complainants. It was further stated that the Policies, in question, were cancelled by the Opposite Parties, without going into merits of the complaint, in full and final settlement of the claim. It was further stated that, after full and final settlement of the claim, by refunding the amount of the Policies, nothing remained due against the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the amount through cheques, vide letter dated 15.01.2013 Annexure R-2, was obtained by the complainants, without any protest or demur. It was further stated that after the receipt of amount of the Policies, by the complainants, without any protest or demur, they ceased to be the consumers qua the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.5 was not the authorized agent of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. Opposite Parties No.5 and 6, were duly served, but neither they, nor any authorized representative, on their behalf, put in appearance, before the District Forum, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, vide orders dated 31.03.2013 and 10.02.2014, respectively.
8. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainants, they reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
9. The complainants and Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, led evidence, in support of their case.
10. After hearing the Counsel for the complainants, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.
12. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/complainants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
13. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, in the first instance, the Opposite Parties issued the Policies, by recording wrong facts, in the proposal forms, and, thereafter, when the request was made for cancellation of the same, they initially rejected the same. He further submitted that after a lot of correspondence, with the Opposite Parties, and on making a number of complaints, they agreed to cancel the Policies. He further submitted that the Policies, no doubt, were ultimately cancelled by the Opposite Parties, and the amount thereof was refunded to the complainants, yet, they failed to pay interest, as the said amount was illegally and improperly retained by them, for a sufficient longer period. He further submitted that even a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainants, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, and they were required to be compensated for the same, but the District Forum was wrong, in declining this relief to them. He further submitted that, in case, the complainants had raised any protest, then the amount would not have been refunded to them, and, as such, it (protest) was not made. He further submitted that since the refund of amount was received, under compelling circumstances, the complainants did not cease to be the consumers, qua the Opposite Parties, and, as such, the Consumer Complaint was maintainable. He further submitted that the complainants were entitled to interest and compensation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
14. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the Policies, in question, were purchased by the complainants, from the Opposite Parties. They signed the proposal forms. No doubt, the complainants did not make any request, for cancellation of the Policies, in case, they were not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the same (Policies), during the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same. They, however, made request for cancellation of the Policies, in question, much after the expiry of free-look-period of 15 days, yet, the Opposite Parties, without going into merits of the case, as a goodwill gesture, refunded the amount, by sending the cheques dated 11.01.2013, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.2,50,500/-, respectively. The complainants admitted that these amounts were received by them, on 15.01.2013. Before refunding the amount aforesaid, to the complainants, they gave their consent vide letter dated 31.12.2012, copy whereof is Annexure R-1, addressed to the Manager, Aegon Religare Insurance Company, Chandigarh. The complainants, thus, received this amount, without any protest or demur. Not only this, even after the receipt of amount aforesaid, on 15.01.2013, the complainants did not, immediately lodge any protest, by writing a letter to the Opposite Parties, stating therein, that they were accepting the amount, in partial satisfaction of the claim, and reserved their right to resort to the legal remedy for claiming interest and compensation. The complainants, after receiving the amount, on 15.01.2013, filed the Consumer Complaint on 03.04.2013. Why the complainants kept silent, and slept over the matter, for a period of about three months, after acceptance of the amount of the Policies, is not known. This clearly goes to prove that the complainants, voluntarily, accepted the refund of amount aforesaid, without claiming any interest and compensation. Since the complainants accepted the refund of amount of the Policies, without any protest or demur, the relationship of consumers and service providers between the parties, ceased to exist. Similar observations were made in Indu Bala Satija Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2013) CPJ 475 (NC). Under these circumstances, the complainants were not entitled to interest and compensation, as claimed by them. The Opposite Parties were, thus, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
15. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants, placed reliance on National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sehtia Shoes, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 584 (S.C.), in support of his contention that an aggrieved party can file a Consumer Complaint, before the Consumer Fora, for enhancement of claim, but it has to prove that it had accepted the amount, on account of coercion. There is, no dispute, with regard to the proposition of law, laid down, in National Insurance Company Ltd., case (supra). In the instant case, as stated above, consent letter, copy whereof is Annexure R-1 dated 31.12.2012, was sent by the complainants, for cancellation of the Policies, in question, and refund of the amount thereof. It is further evident, that vide letter dated 15.01.2013 Annexure R-2, refund of the amount was made, in favour of the complainants, and they received the same, on the said date (15.01.2013), as admitted by them, in the complaint itself. Neither, at the time of receipt of the refund of amount, any protest was raised by the complainants, nor, immediately, thereafter, they wrote any letter, to the Opposite Parties, raising any protest, reserving their right to resort to the legal remedy, for claiming interest and compensation. As stated above, after receipt of the refund of amount, the complainants filed the Consumer Complaint on 03.04.2013, i.e. after about three months. Had any coercion been exercised, upon the complainants, or had they accepted the amount of refund under protest, or undue inference, they would have immediately after the receipt thereof, lodged their protest, that they were accepting the same, only towards partial satisfaction of their claim. They, however, failed to do so. Since the complainants, voluntarily, accepted the refund of amount, they were estopped from claiming any interest and compensation. Since the facts of National Insurance Company Ltd., case (supra) are completely distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.
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 completion Pronounced.
21/05/2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg