First Appeal No. 362 of 2013. Case: Tapan Kanti Dhar Vs Tata AIG Life Insurance Corporation Limited. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 362 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prince Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: Nimish Gupta, Advocate |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. (President) and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | II (2014) CPJ 183 (HP) |
| Judgement Date | March 22, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, J. (President)
-
Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed. Appellant purchased an insurance policy from the respondents in July, 2007 and paid a premium of Rs. 50,000 up to 4.8.2008, According to the appellant; his name, his nominee's name, his occupation and his address mentioned in the policy, were incorrect and also his signature on the proposal form and documents annexed thereto, were forged. He wrote to the respondents on 10.7.2008, 25.7.2008, 2.8.2008 and 4.8.2008, about the errors/mistakes; about his name, his nominee's name, his address, his occupation, as also his signature, being forged on the proposal form, and some documents, but there was no response. So, he requested the respondents to cancel the policy and refund the entire money paid by him. Respondents refunded only a sum of Rs. 25,000, out of the amount of Rs. 50,000 and illegally withheld a sum of Rs. 25,000. So, he prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to refund the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000, with interest and also to pay Rs. 1.00 lac as compensation; besides seeking a direction for payment of litigation cost.
-
Respondents contested the complaint and pleaded that particulars in the policy were mentioned on the basis of information given in proposal form and that the appellant having applied for cancellation of policy, after expiry of 'free look period' of fifteen days, only a sum of Rs. 25,000 on account of surrender value, had been paid. It was stated that proposal form was filled in, allegedly by the agent and that for the purpose of filling in the form, the agent acted as an agent of the appellant himself, because filling in the form, was the job of the appellant.
-
Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint with the finding that policy does not provide for the refund of entire paid-up premium and that in the matter of filling in the form for prospective purchaser of policy, the agent of the insurer, acts as an agent of the prospective...
To continue reading
Request your trial