Haryana

Sonipat

321/2014

DR. CHAND SINGH S/O PRITHVI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Naveen Ranga

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.321 of 2014

                                Instituted on:26.11.2014

                                Date of order:19.10.2015

 

Dr Chand Singh son of Prithvi Singh, r/o H.No.250, Ward no.19, Sonepat also at Pooja Nursing Home, Kabirpur road, Opp. Anand Cinema, 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. 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 respondent.

 

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 on the representation and assurance of Sh.Paramjit employee/authorized person of respondent no.2, the complainant agreed to invest an amount of Rs.70,000/- in fixed deposit scheme and gave cheque no.205453 dated 20.10.2011 to the said authorized person. The complainant kept on waiting for the investment certificate, but he did not receive the same and he sent a letter dated 12.2.2013 to the respondent no.2.  The complainant also sent letter dated 20.4.2013 to Grievance Redressal Officer, Mumbai for refund of his amount.  However, after great pursuance, the complainant received the policy document on 28.2.2013.  The claim of the complainant was dismissed by the respondents on insubstantial ground that the policy document was not got cancelled by the complainant within free look period.   The complainant sent his complaint to Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh and the same was decided vide award dated 13.3.2014.  But after receiving the copy of award, the complainant was shocked to see that the order was passed in different terms and converted the same into new single policy without free look option.  The complainant sent a letter dated 24.4.2014 to the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh expressing his resentment.  The act and conduct of the respondents shows that they arbitrarily and wrongfully made the complainant to invest the amount by misrepresenting the facts and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are altogether wrong and false. The complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts of the case.  The complainant may get his policy reviewed by returning the policy and documents within 125 days free look period from the day the policy holder receive the policy.  The policy alongwith documents were dispatched to the complainant on 29.10.2011 and the same were duly received.  The respondents for the first time received a grievance on 22.2.2012 pertaining to non-receipt of the policy documents.   The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given-up/relinquish/waved his right by not exercising the free look provision.  The complainant has not impleaded agent/employee namely Paramjit  as a party in the present compliant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as alleged by the complainant. The Hon’ble Ombudsman vide its order dated 4.4.2014 directed the respondent company to cancel the policy and to convert it into a single policy without free look option.  The respondents vide letter dated 17.4.2014 agreed to comply with the directions of the Ombudsman.   The respondents in no way indulged themselves into unfair trade practice.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the contents of the complaint, reply filed by the respondents and evidence led by both the parties very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          We have perused the order dated 13.3.2014 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and in this order, the Insurance Ombudsman has mentioned that Dr Chand Singh represented for cancellation/a refund immediately after a receipt of the policy. The company did not provide any proof of delivery of the policy.

          Non-receipt of the policy was the main root cause for approaching the Insurance Ombudsman by the complainant and similar is the reason for filing the present complaint before this Forum. 

The complainant has also been able to prove his case against the respondents that they converted the policy in question into new single policy without free look option.  The complainant has been further able to prove that there is hide and seek on the part of the respondents.  The complainant has invested his amount with the respondents under fixed deposit plan, but the respondents very cleverly and to cheat the complainant, has issued the policy in the name of the complainant, which was never received by the complainant.   In this way, the respondents not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant, but has also caused him unnecessary mental agony, harassment and mental agony.  Thus, taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the complainant in support of his case, we hereby allow the present complaint with the directions to the respondents to make the payment of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.seventy thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from 20.10.2011 till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for rendering deficient services, for harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- under the head of litigation expenses.

          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:19.10.2015