Case Title: Nek Ram Pal vs. Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. and 2 others
Case No.: CC/211/2021
Summary
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh dismissed a customer complaint involving an insurance company, Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd., for allegations of fraud, forgery, and deceit. The complaint, filed by Nek Ram Pal, claimed that the insurance company had deceived him into purchasing a retirement life insurance policy with fictitious benefits and facts. The complainant learned that his son was named as the proposer on the policy, even though it wasn’t in their mutual consent. Both the complainant and his son had faked their signatures and had not signed any paperwork. The policy’s terms did not match the explanation he had received, making matters worse.
The insurance company objected to the complaint, claiming that the plaintiff had voluntarily filed for the insurance policy, listed himself as the proposer, and had the life insurance taken out in his son’s name. They also claimed that the complainant had correctly registered an ECS form for premium payment through his bank and chose not to use the free-look cancellation option within the allotted time.
The District Commission acknowledged the complexity of the complainant’s claims and the grave concerns they raised regarding cheating, fraud, and forgery. Due to the nature of the dispute, thorough proof was required to address the current concerns and allegations. The District Commission decided that the case ought to be brought before a civil court with jurisdiction, and the complaint was thrown out, and the complainant was encouraged to take their grievances to the civil court.
About the case
A customer complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench made up of Mr. Jagdev Singh Raitka, Ms. Yogita Dutta, and Dr. Baldev Singh, the commission’s President, because it contained significant accusations of fraud, forgery, and deceit. According to the District Commission, a consumer commission is inappropriate for these types of cases because they cannot be settled hastily. Instead, the complainant was encouraged to take the case to a civil court with jurisdiction.
Nek Ram Pal, the “Complainant,” claimed that Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd., the “Insurance Company,had deceived him into buying a retirement life insurance policy with fictitious benefits and facts. His son would be the nominee on the policy, he said, and people from the insurance firm had originally told him as much. On the other hand, the complainant learned that his son had been named as the proposer on the policy, even though it was not in their mutual consent, when he received the policy documents. The complainant also claimed that both he and his son had faked their signatures and had not signed any paperwork. The policy’s terms did not match the explanation he had received, which made matters worse. The person complaining felt wronged and went to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) to lodge a complaint. The insurance company had not given him the entire amount of the premium, so he wanted a refund.
The insurance company and its officials objected to the complaint in response. They said that the plaintiff had voluntarily filed for the insurance policy, listing himself as the proposer and having the life insurance taken out in his son’s name. They claimed that after reading the proposal form in English and providing the necessary documentation to prove their address and age, the complaint and his son had signed it. Furthermore, it was said that the complainant had correctly registered an ECS form for premium payment through his bank and had chosen not to use the free-look cancellation option within the allotted time. They insisted that the complaint was aware of the terms and conditions and had received the policy statement.
The District Commission acknowledged the complexity of the complainant’s claims and the grave concerns they raised regarding cheating, fraud, and forgery. Due to the nature of the dispute, thorough proof was required in order to sufficiently address the current concerns and allegations. As a result, the District Commission decided that the Consumer Protection Act of 2019’s summary proceedings were not the appropriate means of resolving the issue. Rather, the District Commission decided that, considering the complicated and contested circumstances, the case ought to be brought before a civil court having the necessary authority. Consequently, the complaint was thrown out, and the complainant was told to take their grievances to the civil court.
