BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 577  OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.761 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

Between

Sri Mukha Pramod Kumar, S/o M.Chinna Shetty,

Age. 44 years, Occ. Business,R/o Flat No.301,

(Plot No.:99), Old Vasavi Nagar,

Secunderabad 500 015.

                                                                                          Appellant/Complainant

AND

1.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Authorised Person,Vinod Silk Mills Compound,

          Chakravarthy Ashok Nagar,

          Mumbai 400 101.

2.       Authorised Person,

          ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

          Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg.,

          Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 034.

                                                                                Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                  Sri  B.Anil Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents             Sri Aravindu Mathuri

QUORUM              :

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY THE FIRST DAY DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant    aggrieved by the orders   of District Consumer Forum-III Hyderabad wherein the District Forum dismissed the complaint.  

2.                 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3.                 The case of the complainants, in brief, is that, the Complainant   subscribed for a Life Insurance Policy, issued by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, vide Policy No.01995101 for a period of 15 years with an assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the premium was Rs.10,000/- which is to be paid annually.   The policy commenced on 09-11-2005.   At the time of obtaining the Life Insurance Policy, the Opposite Party issued a Group Personnel Accident Policy, floated by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, as complementary along with the Life Insurance obtained by him. The opposite parties have sent a copy of the Accident Insurance Policy every year along with a renewal of the life insurance until the year 2009 but thereafter  the opposite parties failed to send the Group Accident Policy, although, it was promised that the Group Accident Policy would be issued for the entire tenure of the Life Insurance Policy.  The Complainant represented to the opposite parties several times, both written and in personal visits requesting them to send Renewal of the Accident Policy. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties mis-represented and misled the Complainant in obtaining the life insurance policy, luring him with the promise of issuing accident policy year after year and failed to do the same. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the Complainant issued a legal notice, dated 17-02-2011 and 22-04- 2011. He received replies in the month of March & June 2011 stating that the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, is not concerned with the Group Accident Policy issued by ICICI Lombard General insurance.  Hence, the complainant praying to direct the opposite parties  to renew and issue Personal Accident Policy every year covering an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till 09.11.2020. In the event of failure to do so,  the opposite parties are liable to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused to the complainant. 

4.                The opposite party no.1  resisted the case and contended that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed as there has been no cause of action against this Opposite Party. There have been suppression of facts and is barred by limitation as per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. It also ought to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It is submitted that the Complainant sourced the Life Insurance Policy through his advisor, India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, which has not been made the party in the instant case. It is further submitted that the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, are 2 separate legal entities and have nothing to do with the business conducted by either. It is submitted that the Complainant had applied for a policy on his own life under the Company’s Secure plus Scheme with the sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- and the risk covered commences from 09-11-2005 ending in the year 09-11-2020. The complainant is required to pay Annual Premium of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant received the copy of the policy and the policy document vide courier on 14-11-2005 and was entitled to “Freelook Period” of 15 days within which he was at liberty to point out any discrepancies that may have existed in the policy of the proposal form.   The two policies are separate matters and the opposite party no.1   cannot be held liable for any omissions or commissions by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company.  Hence, the opposite party no.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   The Opposite Party No.2, equally resisted the case contending that  they have issued a Master Policy to M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, which is a Group Accident Policy, holder and under the said policy, M/s India Infoline Insurance Services members are insured for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of one year. Therefore, those interested in obtaining the Group Accident Policy will join as the member in the Group Policy upon approaching M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited. Accordingly the policy certificate number 040697 was issued to the Complainant by M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, valid from 02-10-2005 until 01-10-2006. M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, has been issuing renewed policy certificate until the year 2008 only.  Subsequently M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, did not renew the Master Group Accident Policy for the subsequent period with the Opposite Party No.2 and as such it does not have any knowledge with which insurer they took the Master Policy thereafter.  In the event of any entity or personnel having floated such complementary policy along with the life insurance policy, they alone are responsible in such acts but not   Opposite Party no.2.  The issuing of policy, free of costs is a void contract due to the lack of consideration.  The  Complainant cannot claim any relief from Opposite Party no.2 as there is no privity of contract between them and the Complainant or M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, as they did not renew the Master Policy after 30.09.2008.   Hence, the opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                 In proof of his case, the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A25 marked.    On behalf of the opposite parties, the Risk Manager of the opposite party no.1 has filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.B1 to B5 marked.

7.                 The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint   bearing CC No.761 of 2011   by orders dated 18.07.2014. 

8.                  Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant  preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  The District Forum failed to see that India Infoline Services Limited is not a necessary party to the case as the entire transaction took place between the appellant and the respondents.  Exs.A2 to A4 were issued by the opposite party no.2 only but not by India Infoline Service Limited. With the internal arrangement of the opposite party no.2 and India Infoline Services Limited are nothing to do with the complainant and that the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the damages to the complainant and it has to be recovered from India Infoline Services Limited.  Hence, the appellant/complainant prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum and grant the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.  

9.                 Appellant present in person and was heard.  No representation for the respondents’ no.1 and 2.  Written arguments of appellant and the opposite partyno.1 filed. 

10.              The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

11.               It is an admitted fact that the Complainant obtained ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company under the Scheme Secure plus by paying Annual Premium of Rs.10,000/- on 09.11.2005 and maturing on 09.11.2020.    It is also an admitted fact that   India Infoline Insurance Services Limited is the group policy holder under which certificates are issued to its members covering the risk of accidents for a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of one year commencing from 02.10.2005 and ending on 01.10.2006. It is apparent from the above that India Infoline Insurance Services Limited, extended the Group Personal Accident risk to its members by virtue of holding a Group Personal Accident policy obtained from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited.   M/s India Infoline Insurance Services renewed the policy till 06.09.2009 and thereafter stopped renewing the policy.

12.                 The insurance policy is a contract of insurance between the Insurance Co. on one hand and insured on the other( who purchase policies).  This contract proceed with the proposal form submitted by the person intending to take insurance policy.  He also pays certain amount at the time of proposal and when the amount is accepted and policy is issued, there is a binding contract between two parties insured and Insurance Co.  Once contract is complete by issuance of policy, the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be directed to be verified  by either party.   

13.              In this case India Infoline  Insurance Services Limited is the main party which extended  the group personal accident  risk to its members by virtue of holding a Group Personal Accident policy  obtained from ICICI General Insurance Limited and M/s India Infoline Insurance services Limited has been issuing renewed policy certificate until the year 2008 only and thereafter it stopped extending the Group Personal Accident policy subsequent to the period form 06.03.2009 onwards.  It is M/s India Infoline Insurance service Limited which has enrolled the complainant as a member under their Group personal Accident Policy upon payment of Rs.20/- by their members.  When India Infoline ceased to obtain Personal Accident policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance, the question of extending the coverage to its members does not arise.  It is not the case of the complainant that the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy has not been renewed or that the complainant himself has taken a separate policy from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and that it refused to renew the policy further on payment of premium by the complainant.  It is the India Infoline who is the master policy holder under which the complainant is a beneficiary of  that policy and if the master policy holder stopped payment of renewing the policy, the opposite parties cannot be blamed that they have not renewed the personal accident policy.  As a matter of fact there is no privity of contract between the opposite parties and the complainant or M/s India Infoline Insurance Services Limited as they did not renew the Master Policy after 30.09.2008.  The complainant has been paying his yearly premium and the life insurance is in force.  There is no cause of action against the opposite parties. 

14.             In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any merit in the contentions of the appellant and accordingly find no fault with the findings of the forum below.  In the circumstances discussed supra, we answer the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.10, supra, in favour of the respondents/opposite parties and against the appellant/complainant. 

                    In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed but no costs.   

                                                                                PRESIDENT           MEMBER

                                                                                          01.02.2018