Dev Raj, Member -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) in the following manner:
"10. .......The opposite parties need to process the claim of the Complainant as per the Regulations reproduced hereinabove. However, before the opposite parties can process the claim, the Complainant needs to make a formal request to the opposite parties for the same, so that the opposite parties can process his claim as per the above clauses.
11. The complainant may choose to approach the opposite parties for cancellation of the Policy in terms of Clause 7 above, if he desires. Opposite parties should comply with his request in terms of the IRDA Guidelines. Complaint is disposed of accordingly. No costs."
The facts, in brief, are that in the last week of March, 2010, one Mr. Abhilash Verma, a Business Development Officer, of the opposite parties, approached the complainant, at his residence, for sale of Insurance Policy of the opposite parties, and explained him the main features of the Policy. It was stated that after a day or so, on 29.3.2010, Mr. Vikas Sood, Sales Manager of the opposite parties, approached the complainant, at his residence, with a sale attraction and provided him a special feature of the Policy, in writing, on brochure of the Company, under his signatures, that after 5th year, he could get all the benefits of the Policy with 240% premium bonus. It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs. 40,000, through cheque, to the opposite parties, as premium for the first year, and Policy No. 100311730534 was issued to him on 31.3.2010, which he received at the end of first week of April, 2010 (Annexure C -3). It was further stated that on receipt of the Policy Document, at the start of 2nd week of April, the complainant was stunned to know that somebody forged his signatures, for accepting the terms and conditions on Pages 23 and 28, annexed with the Policy. It was further stated that the complainant immediately contacted the opposite parties, and sent an e -mail to the Grievance Manager on Email -ID i.e. Grievancemanager@aegonreligare.com on 9.4.2010, and lodged his grievance, and also requested to tally his signatures on pages 19 and 28 of the Policy and to withdraw the notings on pages 23/28 of the same or to cancel the same within the free look period without any loss to the complainant.
(2.) IT was further stated that the complainant, in response to the reply from the opposite parties received on 10.4.2010, which was not satisfactory, again on 21.4.2010 requested them to take remedial measures, against their office/staff and send the original of Page 23 to enable him to take suitable legal recourse (Annexure C -6). It was further stated that the opposite parties sent reply dated 24.4.2010, just to delay the matter. It was further stated that a detailed complaint was also sent, by the complainant, to the opposite parties, under his full signatures on 5.6.2010 (Annexure C -8) along with the brochure, but no action was taken by them. It was further stated that in spite of refunding the money, the opposite parties used to send their staff to the complainant, which assured to pay back the same after three complete years, with full benefit and bonus of every year. It was further stated that the complainant paid premiums for subsequent two years also through cheques (Annexures C -9 and C -10 respectively), subject to e -mails dated 9.4.2010 and 5.6.2010. It was further stated that no action was taken by the opposite parties, which was a clear -cut deficiency of service. It was further stated that finally, the complainant sent a registered notice dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure C -11) to the Head Office of the opposite parties, with a copy to its Branch Office, at Sector 22, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the opposite parties replied vide letter dated 19.4.2013 (Annexure C -12), received by the complainant on 26.4.2013, which was not at all satisfactory. 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 confirm the special features agreed/committed by their Sales Manager, in writing on the brochure or in the alternative, pay Rs. 1,20,000, paid as premium, during three years, plus profits and bonus declared for those three years; pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice; and Rs. 20,000 as costs of litigation.
(3.) THE opposite parties, in their written version, stated that the complainant did not disclose any deficiency in service or irresponsible act, on the part of the opposite parties, which was clearly evident from the documents forming part of the Policy Contract, entered into between him and the opposite parties. It was further stated that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law and was filed just to harass the opposite parties. It was further stated that the Policy was issued, strictly in accordance with the proposal form filled by the complainant and the same (Policy) was governed by the terms and conditions stated in the same. It was further stated that on receipt of the complaint, from the complainant, he was informed that if he wanted to cancel the Policy, he was required to submit certain documents, for the said purpose, but he failed to submit the same. It was further stated that in the meantime, the opposite parties investigated the matter and informed the complainant vide letter dated 24.6.2010, that the Policy would be governed by the terms and conditions of the same and no other assertions or promises made by anyone would be applicable. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant did not respond and paid two more annual premiums (Annexures R -4 and R -5), which impliedly consented to the continuation of the Policy, and waiving off his right of getting the Policy cancelled. It was further stated that the complainant is now not interested in continuing the Policy and is resorting to unfair means to wriggle out of his contractual obligations and to extract money from the opposite parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.;