5 min readUpdated: Jul 17, 2026 01:48 PM IST
An 80-year-old deaf man who alleged that he was sold a life insurance policy instead of a fixed deposit after approaching an Axis Bank branch has lost his consumer case, with a Chhattisgarh consumer commission dismissing the complaint after holding that the allegations were not proved.
President Sujata Jaswal and member Dakeshwar Soni of the Uttar Bastar-Kanker District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were hearing a complaint filed by one Hichha Ram Sen and his son Dinesh Kumar Sen against Axis Bank’s Kanker branch and Max Life Insurance Company Limited, alleging that they had been misled into purchasing an insurance policy instead of opening a fixed deposit (FD) and had consequently suffered financial loss.
“The complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed,” the Commission said in the operative portion of its order dated June 25.
The dispute dates back to December 2014, when the complainants alleged that Hichha Ram Sen had approached Axis Bank to invest his savings in a fixed deposit but was instead enrolled in a Max Life Insurance policy. According to the complaint, four premiums totalling about Rs 3.95 lakh were deducted over the years. More than a decade later, however, the District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainants had failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
The complainants had alleged that Hichha Ram Sen, who is hearing-impaired, had visited the Axis Bank branch intending to invest his savings in a fixed deposit. According to them, bank officials instead got him enrolled in a Max Life Insurance policy without properly explaining the nature of the product or obtaining his informed consent. They claimed that because of his disability and age, he was unable to understand the transaction and later discovered that he had been issued an insurance policy instead of a fixed deposit.
How dispute began
According to the complaint, Hichha Ram maintained a joint savings account with the bank’s branch in Kanker, along with his son. On December 6, 2014, he approached the bank intending to invest Rs 3 lakh in a senior citizen fixed deposit.
The complainants alleged that bank officials, along with an insurance agent, advised him that investing in an insurance plan would fetch much higher returns than a fixed deposit. They allegedly assured him that if he deposited about Rs 1 lakh annually for three years, he would receive around Rs 6 lakh after eight years. They also claimed that in the event of his death, his family would receive a benefit exceeding Rs 9 lakh.
Story continues below this ad
The commission noted that the complainant had complete hearing loss, was elderly and had poor education, making him dependent on the representations made by bank officials. It further recorded that all discussions with him were carried out in writing because of his hearing disability.
Money deducted in four premiums
According to the complainants, instead of opening the fixed deposit sought by Hichha Ram Sen, Max Life Insurance issued a Life Gain Premier policy on December 12, 2014. The policy was issued in the name of his son, Vijay Kumar Sen, while Hichha Ram Sen was shown as the nominee. The annual premium was Rs 96,032.63, the premium-paying term was eight years, and the policy term was 20 years.
The records before the commission show that four premium payments Rs 99,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 97,800 and Rs 97,833.24 were debited from the bank account between December 2014 and January 2017, taking the total amount paid towards the policy to Rs 3,94,633.24.
The policy was subsequently surrendered, and a surrender value of Rs 2,67,018 was credited to Vijay Kumar Sen’s bank account on December 14, 2025. The complainants contended that they had suffered a loss of Rs 1,27,615.24, the difference between the premiums paid and the surrender value, and issued legal notices before filing the consumer complaint in 2025.
Story continues below this ad
However, after considering the evidence and the submissions of both sides, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Bastar-Kanker dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainants had failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against Axis Bank and Max Life Insurance.
Allegations denied
Axis Bank denied the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, contending that the insurance policy had been issued after following the prescribed procedure and that the complainants had voluntarily opted for the insurance product. It maintained that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on its part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Max Life Insurance Company also denied the allegations, asserting that the policy had been issued after completion of all necessary formalities and in accordance with applicable procedures. The insurer maintained that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the consumer complaint.
