Consumer Commission Not A Forum For Matters Involving Serious Allegations Of Fraud, Forgery Etc. Shimla District Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member), and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member), dismissed a consumer complaint on account of it involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The District Commission held that a consumer commission is unsuited for such matters as they cannot be resolved summarily. The complainant was advised to pursue the matter in a competent civil court instead. Brief Facts: Nek Ram Pal (“Complainant”) contended that he was misled by Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. (“Insurance Company”) into purchasing a retirement life insurance policy with false facts and benefits. He claimed that individuals representing the insurance company had initially assured him that the policy would be in his name, with his son as the nominee. However, upon receiving the policy documents, the complainant discovered that the policy had been issued in his son’s name, and he was listed as the proposer, which was not by their agreement. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that neither he nor his son had signed any documents, and their signatures had been forged. To compound matters, the policy’s terms did not align with what had been explained to him. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh). He demanded a refund of the premium amount because the insurance company had not provided it in full. In response, the insurance company and its representatives raised objections to the complaint. They contended that the complainant had willingly applied for the insurance policy, wherein the life insurance was taken out in the name of his son, and the complainant had been listed as the proposer. They asserted that the complainant and his son had signed the proposal form in English after understanding the contents, and they provided the required documents for age and address proof. It was further argued that the complainant had signed an ECS form for premium payment through his bank, which was duly registered, and the complainant had opted not to exercise the free-look cancellation option within the prescribed period. They maintained that the complainant had received the policy document and was aware of the terms and conditions. Observations by the Court: The District Commission recognized that the complainant’s allegations were complex and raised serious issues of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The nature of the dispute demanded comprehensive evidence to adequately address the questions and allegations at hand. Consequently, the District Commission held that the matter was unsuitable for resolution through the summary proceedings typically under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Instead, the District Commission held that the matter should be pursued in a civil court with the appropriate jurisdiction, given the complex and disputed facts. As a result, the complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was advised to seek redressal through the civil court. Case Title: Nek Ram Pal vs. Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. and 2 others Case No.: CC/211/2021 Advocate for the Complainant: Praveen Chauhan and Manoj Chauhan Advocate for the Respondent: Himanshu Kapila and ML Sharma for Opp Parties 1 and 2.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Consumer Commission Not A Forum For Matters Involving Serious Allegations Of Fraud, Forgery Etc. Shimla District Commission

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Consumer Commission Not A Forum For Matters Involving Serious Allegations Of Fraud, Forgery Etc. Shimla District Commission

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers