Tata Aia Life Insurance Co Ltd vs Leelawati Nayak

COUNSEL for the parties present. Arguments heard.

TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Formerly known as Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Raipur and Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, were arrayed as OPs 1 and 2, respectively, in the present proceedings. Sh. Dindayal Nayak, son of the complainant, Smt. Leelawati Nayak, used to work as an agent in the OPs Company. On 15.03.2011, the OPs received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ - from the complainant. However, instead of issuing one policy in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/ -, the OPs issued a policy in the sum Rs.5,00,000/ - in the name of the complainant and two policies in sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs, each, in the names of Dindayal Nayak and Sunil Kumar Nayak, who are the sons of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant had requested to issue the policy in her name only. The signatures of Dindayal Nayak and Sunil Kumar Nayak were forged, while transferring the fund of the complainant in their names. This was done without the consent and information of the complainant and her sons.

SUBSEQUENTLY , it transpired that separate policies were issued. When it came to the knowledge of the complainant, she submitted an application requesting to return the amount while cancelling the policies issued in favour of her both sons. However, the OPs avoided to accept her request. Ultimately, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. Before the District Forum, the OPs denied all these allegations. The OPs stated that they had prepared the policies as per the directions given by the complainant. It is alleged that Dindayal Nayak who used to work as an agent in the company of the OPs had taken the policies after reading over and understanding the terms and conditions of the policies. He did not raise any objection. He could have applied for refund or cancellation of the policies, but the needful was not done.

THE District Forum decided the case in favour of the complainant and passed the following orders : - "a) The non -applicants are hereby directed to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/ - to the applicant deposited by her within a period of one month and will make payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a., with effect from the date of order on amount of Rs.5,00,000/ -, till the date of payment.

b) The non -applicants are hereby directed to make payment of Rs.5,000/ - for mental and physical harassment and litigation charges of Rs.2,000/ - to the applicant".

THE policy in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - in favour of the complainant, remained intact.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the OPs, before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and imposed further costs of Rs.1,000/ - upon the OPs.

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the OPs submits that the orders passed by the fora below are not legally tenable. He, however, does not elaborate his point. Both the fora below have found that the remaining policies in the sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs, each, in favour of the sons of the complainant, were not properly prepared, there was forgery. Both the fora below have given sound reasonings in proving this point. On the contrary, the OPs have not produced any solid and unflappable evidence to disprove their allegation. The revision petition is meritless and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Orders passed by the fora below be complied with, within 10 days'' from today, as prayed by the counsel for the petitioners/OPs.

THE policy of Smt. Leelawati Nayak, the complainant, in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - shall continue as a valid policy, from the date of its issue and will be running as per the terms and conditions of the policy.