The Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICoBC) has fined Tegpreet Singh Dhadwal $3,000 for forging a client’s signature three times. The agent has also had his license revoked for two years ending in September 2027 and must complete three ethics courses prior to being relicensed.
The intended decision, detailed in its description of abuse and coercion directed at one client, a family acquaintance, would appear to stop short of fining Dhadwal for these transgressions.
Licensed from December 2021 until he was terminated in July 2024 and had his license cancelled the following month, the agent is also being sanctioned for submitting insurance applications while he was without a supervisor.
Accused of failing to follow client instructions
The decision goes on to discuss complaints made by clients MN, MK and MC. In all of the cases, financial needs analysis for the client and reasons why letters were not signed. The former licensee is also accused of failing to follow client instructions when asked to cancel a policy. “The insurer reminded the former licensee of the importance of respecting a client’s decisions and promptly acting on a client’s request for a policy cancellation,” the intended decision in the case states.
The MK complaint is most notable as the agent is accused of threatening the client (the client in question reportedly provided the council with supporting evidence) and using familial pressure to make MK keep the policies when they weren’t affordable. Additionally, the client says Dhadwal misrepresented her income as $100,000 when she did not make this amount.
Later the client informed the insurer that the complaint had been resolved and that she was happy with her products. Later still, “MK sent another letter to the insurer stating that the retraction of her complaint was made under pressure from the former licensee,” the intended decision states.
“MK stated that due to the relationship between MK’s parents and the former licensee’s parents, the former licensee and his mother asked MK and her mother to retract MK’s complaint with the insurer in exchange for money. MK also stated that the former licensee had signed documents on her behalf.”
In the decision it is noted that Dhadwal’s mother contacted MK at least 15 times on the phone, also sending one email.
Aggressive and unprofessional communications
The decision notes that it is clear in the communications exchanged that MK told Dhadwal she could no longer pay for the policies, wanted her money back and believed that she was able to withdraw all the money she had paid into her policies. “There were no communications found that indicated that the former licensee had discussed MK’s financial needs,” the intended decision states. “Council noted the very aggressive and unprofessional communications the former licensee engaged in with MK.”
Overall, the decision continues, “council found that the former licensee had misled clients into buying products that he could not demonstrate to be suitable and had used inappropriate tactics.”
During the council’s investigation, Dhadwal blamed his training for the inappropriate products. He also stopped responding to the council’s inquiries after requesting a rescheduled review committee date. In addition to the fine, coursework and license suspension, Dhadwal was also ordered to pay costs in the amount of $4,750.
