Mumbai: The Central Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed Birla Sun Life Insurance Company to refund the premium amount paid by Sunil Powar, an Arthur Road resident after it was found that the insurance company and a broking company had had acted unfairly by attempting to sell the complainant a new policy instead of correcting the original one.

The commission had thus directed the two to return the premium amount of Rs 60,000 which Powar had paid towards the premium, with 10 percent interest on the amount, from July 2010. Further the two have also been asked to pay Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 towards the complainant’s mental agony and litigation charges, respectively.

Powar, who purchased the policy in August 2011, discovered the forgery upon receiving the policy documents. He had signed the proposal form for a five-year term under the BSLI Vision Plan with an annual premium of ₹60,000, but the policy documents reflected a 20-year term.

Upon comparing the documents with the photocopy of the original proposal form retained by him, the complainant noticed his signature had been forged in the section altering the pay term.

Accordingly, the complainant had immediately approached the insurance company’s representative, who assured him that the error was due to a clerical mistake and promised to issue corrected documents.

However, after waiting until December 2011 without receiving any correction, the complainant lost trust in the company. He demanded cancellation of the policy and a refund of the premium, citing forgery and lack of transparency.

In response, Birla Sun Life Insurance refused to refund the premium, stating that the request for cancellation came after the free-look period had expired. The company denied the allegations of forgery and claimed that the policy was issued based on the signed proposal form. It also offered to amend the policy to a five-year term, which the complainant declined, insisting on a refund due to loss of trust.

The insurer argued that the consumer forum lacked jurisdiction to address allegations of forgery and breach of trust, claiming the case required an elaborate civil trial.

The commission, after reviewing the evidence, ruled that the insurance company had attempted to sell the complainant a new policy instead of correcting the original one or refunding the premium. It held the company guilty of both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The commission stated, “The opposite party, instead of canceling the policy and refunding the amount, forced the complainant to buy a new policy. This act amounts to not only deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice.”