State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lalit Chandranahu vs Chief Branch Manager & Others on 16 July, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/13/158
Instituted on : 27.02.2013
Lalit Chandranahu,
S/o Shri Bhushanlal Chandranahu,
R/o : Station Road,
Mahasamund,
District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Chief Branch Manager,
Axis Bank, Branch Mahasamund,
District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Regional Manager,
Met Life India Insurance Company Limited,
Second Floor, D.M. Plaza, Gandhi Chowk, Chhotapara,
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Pramod Chopra, Zonal Manager,
Met Life India Insurance Company Limited,
3-A, Shakespeare Sarini, Fourth Floor,
Kolkata - 700-071 (West Bengal). ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri A.C. Mishra, for respondent No.1.
Shri Yogesh Pandey, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER
Dated : 16/07/2013 PER: - HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 08.02.2013 in Complaint Case // 2 // No.16/2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum' for short), whereby the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has preferred the appeal under consideration.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are : that the complainant has a savings account bearing No.668010100001076 with Axis Bank, Branch Mahasamund and on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the account, accident insurance coverage of Rs.5,00,000/- was provided. As per averments of the complaint, the O.P. No.1 / Bank worked as Agent for O.P.No.2 Met Life India Insurance Company Limited and the Branch Manager of the O.P.No.1 / Bank had explained certain features of Met Life Insurance Policy and by misrepresenting facts, had allured the complainant to purchase Met Life Met Magic Policy for Rs.75,000/-. When the terms and conditions were received with the policy it was found that Location charges Rs.27,000/- and Service Charges of Rs.3,000/- was charged out of the amount of Rs.75/- paid by the complainant and only the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- was invested. Such terms were not acceptable. Hence after receipt of the policy, the complainant had informed the O.P.No.1/Bank that it was not acceptable to him. The intimation regarding refusal was sent to the insurer through O.P.No.1/Bank but the insurer failed to give any reply. The complainant has alleged that the O.P.No.1/Bank committed deficiency in service in not providing proper information regarding the terms of policy and the O.P.No.2/ Insurer committed deficiency in // 3 // service in not refunding the amount of premium to the complainant, despite refusal of the complainant to accept the terms of the policy, hence claiming relief against the OPs, complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. O.P. No.1 stated in the written version that the O.P.No.1/Bank and the Met Life India Insurance Company Limited / insurer are two separate entities and the insurer has no connection with O.P.No.1/Bank. The insurer has its own agents, who explain terms and conditions of the policy to the purchaser of policy. The O.P.No.1/Bank never explained terms and conditions of the policy to anyone. The O.P.No.1/Bank had only sent Rs.75,000/- to the insurer towards premium at the instruction of the complainant because without such instruction and signature the amount cannot be debited from the account of any account holder. It was further averred that it was the insurer who had prescribed terms and conditions for the insurance policy and the O.P.No.1/Bank had no role in such decisions. As the agents of the insurer used to sit in the Bank premises, hence there was some exchange of information regarding the customers. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. O.P.No.2 & 3 insurer filed written version and submitted that in case terms and conditions of the policy were not acceptable to the complainant, he could have returned the policy document within 15 days of Free Look Period with a request to cancel the policy. As per terms and conditions, after expiry of Free Look Period, the policy can be // 4 // surrendered only after three years. It was further averred that the complainant has alleged that the O.P.no.1/Bank had fraudulently pursued the complainant to purchase the policy, hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction because the matters relating to fraud require detailed investigation which is not possible in summary jurisdiction available to the consumer fora. It was averred that after keeping the policy for nearly one year, the complainant cannot return the policy under the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy itself. As per Condition No.6 the amount was deducted and hence there was no deficiency in service by the insurer.
5. As noted earlier, the District Forum found that the complainant was not able to prove the allegation of deficiency in service on part of the OPs hence complaint was dismissed by the impugned order.
6. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has passed an erroneous order and has wrongly held that terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant, whereas the complainant had specifically averred in the complaint that he was never told about the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complainant had intimated the OPs regarding cancellation of policy and O.P.No.1/Bank had also written a letter dated 28/04/2010 in that regard but the District Forum did not take note of that letter. Learned counsel for the appellant further // 5 // submitted that without any authorization, Rs.27,000/- towards location charges and Rs.3,000/- towards service charges were deducted out of the paid by the complainant and only Rs.40,000/- were invested. This was deficiency in service on part of the insurer. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that signatures of the complainant were obtained without giving proper information to him but the District Forum has taken a different view of the matter, hence the order passed by the District Forum is not tenable in the eye of the law. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank reiterated the stand taken before the District Forum and submitted that the O.P.No.1/Bank had no role in issuance of policy or in deciding the terms and conditions relating to the policy, hence there was no deficiency in service by the O.P.No.1/Bank and the complaint was wrongly filed against O.P.No.1/Bank. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer also reiterated the stand taken before the District Forum and submitted that the District Forum has passed a reasoned order and there is no need to interfere with the same. He prayed for dismissing the appeal.
// 6 //
10. The plea taken by the insurer is that the complainant failed to take necessary objection and return the policy within the Free Look Period and hence after nearly one year the complainant cannot return the policy. It appears from record that the Proposal Form and other relevant documents were signed on 10.03.2009 and premium was also paid on the same date. The complainant has stated that when the policy was sent by the insurer with applicable terms and conditions the complainant found the terms to be not acceptable as out of the amount of Rs.75,000/- given by him only a sum of Rs.40,000/- was invested and rest of the amount was diverted towards Location Charge and Service Charge, hence the complainant returned the policy and informed the insurer through the Bank that the terms and conditions were not acceptable to him. The complainant has not mentioned the date as to when he received the policy with terms and conditions and when he communicated his discontent and returned the policy to the insurer through the Bank. However, letter dated 19.04.2010 sent by the complainant to the Bank is important wherein it is mentioned that as the terms and conditions were not acceptable, the policy was returned with objection through the Bank but no reply was given either by the Bank or the insurer and the same document was again sent back to the complainant and the premium was not refunded. On perusal of record we found that the policy document was sent with covering letter 23.08.2010 though in the policy effective date of policy has been mentioned as 16.03.2009. So the facts mentioned in letter dated 19.04.2010 that the complainant had returned the policy // 7 // earlier appear to have substance firstly because the said letter cannot be said to refer to the covering letter 23.08.2010 through which the policy was sent with terms and conditions as the covering letter dated 23.08.2010 was subsequent to letter of the complainant dated 19.04.2010, secondly for proposal dated 10.03.2009, policy document cannot be believed to have been sent for the first time after more than one year though effective date of policy is shown as 16.03.2009. We find that proposal was signed and other formalities were completed on 10.03.2009 and letter raising objections is dated 19.04.2010 and in view of the facts mentioned in the letter we find that prior to the date of letter the policy was returned by the complainant but the same document was again sent to him instead of returning the premium. The letter dated 19.04.2010 was replied by the Bank so it cannot be said to have been forged or fabricated. So we believe that the complainant had returned the policy through the Bank within the Free Look period.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the Bank had no connection with the insurer and there was no deficiency in service by the Bank. We find that though such plea was also taken in written version before the District Forum but it is not supported by documents. On the contrary the documents tell an altogether different story. We would like to reproduce some extracts of letter dated 28.04.2010 sent by the Bank to the complainant which is at page 32 of the record of District Forum :
// 8 // 'Axis Bank offers a comprehensive suite of products including investment products for the long term. We observe that you have bought a long term investment product, a MetLife Insurance policy, through the Bank.' It is further stated in the letter: 'However should you come across any instance of lack of service from MetLife, please do not hesitate to approach your nearest Axis Bank Branch for service. Alternately you could call up the Help Line number of Axis Bank (1800 233 5577) for registering your service request or query. There is one word of caution that we would like to leave with you which is as under :
If you are approached by any Agent or any other person who suggests to you to cancel your existing policy and buy another policy please do not pay any attention to them. It is not in the interest of the customer to cancel a policy just to buy another one. You could, however, inform us or your Branch Manager of specific instances, if any. We look forward to a long relationship with you and will continue to service your banking and personal investment requirements.'
12. It is apparent from foregoing quoted portion especially that in bold print that the long term investment product was offered by the Bank and the complainant had purchased the said product at the instance of the Bank so the plea of the Bank that it had no role in purchase of policy by the complainant is not sustainable. During course of arguments learned counsel for Bank had also referred to S.230 of the // 9 // Contract Act and submitted that agent is not bound by the contracts entered into by the principal. We do not find the provisions of the said section to be relevant in the facts of the present case.
13. The plea of the counsel for respondent Nos.2&3 was that the terms of policy were fully explained to the complainant as appears from Customer Declaration. We believe, if the terms were fully explained any provision for Free Look period was not necessary. When there was such provision, even if the terms were explained as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2&3 stated, the complainant was entitled to return the policy within the Free Look period, which he did.
14. So, we find that in view of the observations made in forgoing paragraphs, order passed by learned District Forum dismissing the complaint is not proper. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the OP No.2 & 3 shall jointly and severally be liable to return the amount of premium Rs.75,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint. Besides this OP No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay Rs.15,000/- towards mental harassment and loss caused to the complainant due to unfair trade practice adopted by them and Rs.3,000/- towards cost.
(Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K.Patil) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
Presiding Member Member Member
/07/2013 /07/2013 /07/2013