Haryana

Sonipat

314/2014

MADAN SINGH S/O PARTAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. ICICI PRUDENTIONAL LIFE INSURANCE ,2. B.M. ICICI LIFE INSURANCE CO.3. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSUR - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Ranga

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.314 of 2014

                                Instituted on:19.11.2014

                                Date of order:09.03.2016

 

Madan Singh Chauhan son of Partap Singh Chauhan, r/o H.No.244, Ward no.23, Chauhan Hospital, Kath Mandi, Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office at ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Maratha Marg, Parba Devi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chief Manager/Director.

2.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Divn. Office Second Floor, Sheela Shoppe, Sanjay Chowk, 68 Mile Stone Main GT road, Panipat through its Manager.

3.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Ist Floor, 205R, Model Town, Above Central Bank of India, Opp. Minerva, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Ranga Adv. for complainant.

           Mrs. Kamlesh Khatri Adv. for respondents.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.3 lacs in some fixed deposit scheme as it was assured and guaranteed by the authorized person that after paying one time premium against the policy, the complainant will get principal amount alongwith highest interest amount after five years.   The complainant kept on waiting for the policy bond/policy certificate and personally visited the office of the respondent no.3 for getting policy bond. After completion of lock in period of three years in 8/2013, the complainant again approached the respondent no.3, but of no use.  The complainant was shocked to know that the respondents have foreclosed the policy and has issued foreclosure cheque no.220949 dated 19.8.2013 for Rs.37520/- in the name of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant approached the respondents so many times, but of no use and the respondents have committed breach of trust and has caused huge financial loss and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that

the complainant has paid only first year’s premium in respect of his policy and chose not to pay his remaining premiums as a result of which the policy was foreclosed on 19.8.2013 and the respondents as per terms and conditions of the policy paid a sum of Rs.37520.94 paise as foreclosure amount on 19.8.2013 but the same has not been encashed by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  Infact the complainant was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.3 lacs for a premium payment term of 10 years.  The complainant has other policies with the respondents i.e. policy no.00606413, 03548113 and 065534522 from this it is clear that the complainant very well knew about the policies and their features such as free look provision and necessity of paying premiums regularly.  Still the complainant chose to sleep over his right to free look and not to pay renewal premiums.  The allegations leveled in the complaint by the complainant are altogether wrong and false.   The respondents are not privy to the communications and dealings of the complainant and some Dinesh Kumar.  The said Dinesh Kumar is not associated with the respondents.   The company never received any allegations of non receipt of policy documents in any of the policies.   The complaint is baseless and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.3 lacs in some fixed deposit scheme as it was assured and guaranteed by the authorized person that after paying one time premium against the policy, the complainant will get principal amount alongwith highest interest amount after five years.   The complainant kept on waiting for the policy bond/policy certificate and personally visited the office of the respondent no.3 for getting policy bond. After completion of lock in period of three years in 8/2013, the complainant again approached the respondent no.3, but of no use.  The complainant was shocked to know that the respondents have foreclosed the policy and has issued foreclosure cheque no.220949 dated 19.8.2013 for Rs.37520/- in the name of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant approached the respondents so many times, but of no use and the respondents have committed breach of trust and has caused huge financial loss and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the  respondents have submitted that the complainant has paid only first year’s premium in respect of his policy and chose not to pay his remaining premiums as a result of which the policy was foreclosed on 19.8.2013 and the respondents as per terms and conditions of the policy paid a sum of Rs.37520.94 paise as foreclosure amount on 19.8.2013 but the same has not been encashed by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  Infact the complainant was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.3 lacs for a premium payment term of 10 years.  The complainant has other policies with the respondents i.e. policy no.00606413, 03548113 and 065534522 from this it is clear that the complainant very well knew about the policies and their features such as free look provision and necessity of paying premiums regularly.  Still the complainant chose to sleep over his right to free look and not to pay renewal premiums.  The allegations leveled in the complaint by the complainant are altogether wrong and false.   The respondents are not privy to the communications and dealings of the complainant and some Dinesh Kumar.  The said Dinesh Kumar is not associated with the respondents.   The company never received any allegations of non receipt of policy documents in any of the policies.   The complaint is baseless and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

           We have perused the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully and after doing so, we have gathered that the receipt of the premium amount is not disputed by the respondents. The main controversy involved in the present case is, whether the original policy bond was delivered to the complainant by the respondents or not.

          In his affidavit, the complainant has deposed that the original policy bond was never received by him despite the respondents being requested repeatedly in this regard. Due to non-receipt of the policy document the complainant could not avail the benefit of free look period of 15 days to review the terms and conditions in the policy document.

           The onus was on the respondents to prove that the original policy document was delivered to the complainant.

Considering the oral and documentary evidence of complainant and compare the same with the material evidence of respondents, it is no doubt true that, the respondents have not placed any iota of documentary evidence to establish that they have delivered the original policy documents through certificate of post. In the absence of production of receipt or any authenticated documentary evidence for having dispatched the original policy documents to the complainant by respondents, it is inequitable and unjust to hold on the basis of oral testimony of the employee of respondents that the respondent have dispatched the original policy documents to the complainant under certificate of post. The act of the respondents in not delivering the original policy documents to the complainant amounts to sheer negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. After receiving the premium amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from complainant, it is the bounden duty of respondents to confirm that the original policy documents must be delivered to the complainant well within time, enabling the complainant to review the policy document in free look period.

           It has been further mentioned by the respondents in their reply as well as in the affidavit that the policy foreclosure cheque issued by the respondents in the name of complainant has not been encashed by him, which further strengthen the averments of the complainant.

          It is settled principle of law that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation, enacted with a view to protect the interests of the consumers. So in view of the this forum, the respondents are liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lacs) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi) (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:09.03.2016