Negligent behavior of the complainant disqualifies him from receiving benefits due to agent's misconduct.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadiad on 4.1.2013 in Complaint No. 182 of 2012, the original opponent has filed the present appeal under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.

2. To dispose of this appeal, few relevant facts are required to be mentioned: It is the case of the complainant that the complainant has obtained following 3 policies from the opponent Insurance Company :
A. Policy No. 871027973 taken on 27.7.1993 with six monthly installments of Rs. 990.
B. Policy No. 871025557 taken on 15.07.1993 with premium of Rs. 968.
C. Policy No. 871035772 taken on 28.12.1994 with premium of Rs. 235.
It is the submission of the complainant that he has taken loan of Rs. 30,000 against policy No. 871027973 and the other loan of Rs. 17,000 against the policy No. 871025557. It is further submission of the complainant that when he shifted to Karnataka due to business purpose; he gave Rs. 2193 as a premium amount to his agent Mr. Jashwantsinh Fatesinh and also asked him that if any amount needed for premium please let him inform. At that time the said agent Mr. Jaswantsinh has demanded original 03 policies from the complainant but he only handed over 1 policy to him because the remaining 2 policies were in the bank. It is further the case of the complainant that when he came back from Karnataka he approached the said agent Mr. Jaswantsinh Fatesinh but at that time he came to the knowledge that he has cheated with so many people like him and thereafter complainant has approached the opponent Insurance Company to deposit the remaining amount of premium but opponent Insurance Company informed him that the said agent has submitted his bogus death certificate and received the claim amount. It is further submission of the complainant that without verifying the documents the opponent Insurance Company has paid the claim amount to agent and also the opponent Insurance Company has not handed over the cheque of the claim amount in personal to his wife and therefore by this way the opponent Insurance Company has shown deficiency in service.

3. It is further submission of the complainant that opponent Insurance Company has filed Criminal complaint against the agent Mr. Jaswantsinh and the said compliant has already been disposed of and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the policy amount of Rs. 1,52,849 but the opponent Insurance Company has not taken any action and therefore the complainant has filed Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission Nadiad to get the policy amount of Rs. 1,52,849 and Rs. 70,000 towards the mental torture and cost of the compliant.

4. After hearing learned Advocates for both the parties and after considering the documents and evidences, the learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned District Commission, Nadiad the original opponent has filed the present appeal against the original complainant before this Commission on the ground stated in the appeal memo.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. K.H. Vaghela for the respondent at length. Perused the record, judgment submitted by the appellant and order of the learned District Commission.

7. First of all learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. M.J. Shelat argued out that learned District Commission has completely over looked the fact that complainant himself given his original policy to agent concerned who had misused it and preparing death certificate, forged signature of nominee - wife of