IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 28.07.2014 Date of hearing: 31.07.2024 Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.-737/2014 IN THE MATTER OF CANARA BANK (e-SYNDICATE BANK), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

CANARA BANK, MADHO MANSION, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002.

…Appellant (Through: Mr. Anju Jain & Hitesh Sachar, Advocate)

VERSUS

1. MS. SULAKSHANA BHATTACHARYA, W/O PARTHO BHATTACHARYA, R/O FLAT NO 214, SECTOR 16 VASUNDHARA, GHAZIABAD-UP

2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ THE MANAGER, G-85, 1ST FLOOR MAIN VIKAS MARG, PREET VIHAR DELHI: 110092

3. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ THE MANAGER, GE PLAZA. AIRPORT RD. YERVADA, PUNE MAHARASHTRA-411006 ….Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Hitesh Sachar, counsel for the Appellant appeared on VC.

None for respondent PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“This complaint has been filed with the allegation that OP-2 provided four life insurance policies of Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold Bearing Nos. 0107433275, 0107441257, 0107442401 and 0107444851 from their Delhi office The complainant had put forwarded a proposal for an insurance policy a Corporate Agent - to OP-3, a of OP-2, which was accepted and the above noted four policies were issued. OP-3 had been violating all the banking rules laid down by Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of achieving the targets and thereby cheating the honest and unsuspecting customers. The OP-3 with total disregard to Bank Nationalization Act of 1970 and rules laid down by IRDA sold the policies to the complainant. A total premium of Rs 1.20,000/- was paid through Cheque No. 0414967 The complainant wanted to surrender the policies but it was told by OP-1 that she will have to wait for one more year and it is only after the completion of 36 months from the date of the issuance of the policy that it can be surrendered. On 12.09 2011 she again went to the office of the OP-1 with a request for the surrender of the policies but was shocked and surprised that the total amount deposited for the whole policy amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- had fetched her only Rs. 1,23,750/- thereby causing a direct loss of Rs 56,250/- in 36 months She suffered a great mental pain and agony due to the behavior of OP. She has prayed to this Forum for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 11,000/- towards the cost of litigation and any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper in this case.

The OP-1 & OP-2 in their reply stated that the complainant has already surrendered the policies and the amount is admittedly received by her, which was paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance. She has not raised any protest. Since, contract stands terminated, thus, the complainant is not a Consumer and there is no deficiency of services on the part of the OPs. The complaint is also barred by limitation U/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. The policies in question were issued on 01.09.2008. The main allegation that has been CONSUME OP-3 who has sourced the policies as a corporate agent that the agents are independent contractors who are licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority who act as a agent for solicitation of insurance business for insurance company. Since, there is no Principal- Agent relationship there is no imputed or vicarious responsibility on the part of the answering OPs All these policies were subject to the terms and conditions hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is also alleged that the complainant has alleged the fact of cheating and fraud which cannot be adjudicated upon under the Consumer Protection Act WS filed by OP-3 In the rejoinder it has been alleged by the complainant that the OP-1 & OP-2 have n