Orissa

Jajapur

CC/25/2015

Benudhar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ramakanta Jena

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 27th day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.25 of 2015

Benudhar Nayak  S/O  Late Udhab ch.Nayak

At/P.O. Debidwar  ,Dist.Jajpur

At present : Residing at Alatri ,P.O.Panikoili  Near Sharmas

Petrolpump , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Authorised signatory ,I.C.I.C.I,prudential life Insurance Co.Ltd, 2^nd floor

City market ,plot No.10P 12 P,Barmunda ,Bhubaneswar.

2.Authorised Signatory,I.C.I.C.I,Prudential Insurance Co.Ltd, Code No.00032046

3.Udan Ray, Authorised Agent of I.C.I.C.I prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

Both are of 1^st floor ,Banadurga enterprises,At.Kianali, P.O/P.S/Dist. jajpur.

 

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Party.                  

For the Complainant:                                  Sri R.K. Jena, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party :No.1 and 2                  Sri B. Mohanty, Sri S.S. Ray , Advocates.

For the Opp.party No.3                             None.  

                                                                                                     Date of order:  27. 10.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT .

Deficiency in service  is the grievance of the complainant.

The facts  stated in the complaint petition is  that the petitioner is a resident of jajpur dist. and works in a company .According to the petitioner the O.P.no.3 is the authorized agent of O.p.no.1 and 2, who came in contact with the petitioner  and agreed to proposal of O.P.no.3 for life Insurance policy and accordingly obtained the signature in the  proposal form and required documents , wherein Benudhar Nayak the petitioner date of birth was  18.05.60 and gave Rs.20,000/-  on 19.12.2005 towards the premium for two months vide cheque No.315914 through H.D.F.C, Bank . Thereafter the o.P.no.3 performed  the required paraphernalia after which the petitioner continued to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the premium in post dated cheque in toto the petitioner paid Rs.1,20,000/- but o.p.no.3 committed a mistake while submitting the proposal form etc by wrongly  describing    the name of petitioner and date of birth of the petitioner , for which the name of petitioner has been indicated as Benu Nayak instead of Benudhar Nayak  as well as the date of birth 18.05.1964 instead of 18.05.60 . After knowing  this defect the petitioner time and again ran for correction of date of birth personally and as well as over telephone and also submitted a letter dt. 22.04.09 and 09.05.09 but there was no response  from the side of the O.P. So the petitioner stopped paying the premium . Thus all the attempt of the petitioner with proof of the name and date of birth for correction by the O.P did not bear fruit . On 12.08.13 the petitioner issued a letter to the O.P for necessary correction but there was no response ,for which the petitioner being frustrated filed this application for gross deficiency of service by the O.Ps and for direction to the O.Ps to correct the name of Benudhar nayak  instead of Benu   Nayak along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony .

            In response to notice the O.P entered appearance and filed written objection wherein the o.P.no.1 and 2 submitted that ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company is a registered  company  and carrying on his business . The O.p.no.1 and 2 are duly authorized officer of company . In this averments the O.p.no.1 and 2 contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed as it is a barred by limitation U/S 24 A of c.P.Act,1986. In this connection the O.P  placed reliance in a decision reported in V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vrs.Anita Sena Fernandes 2011-CTJ-1(SC)  and Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.Vs. National Insurance Co.ltd 7 another (2009) CPJ-75 (SC) . The plea of O.P.no.1 and 2 is that the complainant did not approach  the respondent company of receiving the policy documents which is free look period. So the presumption is  that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.ps. On the score the O.ps placed reliance in a decision reported in Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in Mohan Lal Benal Vs.ICICI Prudential Life insurance Co.  and Harish Kumar Chadha Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co .Ltd ) and Shrimant Muralidhar apte Vs. life Insurance corporation of India .So it is the case of O.P.no.1 and 2  that the Insurance company acted as per mandate given to the petitioner in the proposal form and issued the insurance policy in  conformity received from the petitioner . so no liabilities can be fastened  with the O.ps.

            It is further the plea of the O.ps that all the allegations have been made against  Mr Udayan Roy, the Insurance agent . So the O.Ps are in no way liable for any negligence in carrying out the

correction. Further the case of the O.ps is that the petitioner paid premium only for one year and defaulted in paying premium for remaining 9 years of premium payment as agreed in the proposal form duly signed by the petitioner . Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief . Even the petitioner failed to pay the premium during the period of grace provide under the policy and fails to revive the policy  . Thus the O.P.no.1 and 2 can not be blamed for the mistake committed by the complainant. It is further challenged by  the O.Ps that  the petitioner is not a consumer nor  is  entitled to get any relief and placed reliance in a decision reported in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz life Insurance Co.ltd & others (NC)   and Smt. Abanti kumara Sahoo Vrs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd  (SC) .

            It is further submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and suppressed  material  facts and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.ps . Hence the complaint is not maintainable and for this the O.P placed reliance in a decision reported in Ravneet singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1SCC-66.

            It is mentioned by the O.P in the written objection that in the KYC document the petitioner wrote his name as Benu nayak and his date of birth on 01.01.94 , so if his date of birth as 01.01.94  how the policy details it is mentioned 18.05.64 . From this it is cristal clear that the petition  is not speaking truth and mentioned base less  and frivolous thing in the complaint petition . Admittedly the petitioner paid Rs.1,20,000/- towards the premium. The policy commencing from 02.03.2006 ti.. 02.03.2007. Vide para-24 the O.P admitted that the petitioner approached the respondent company O.p.no.1 and 2 on 18.12.2008 .The said letter was replied by the company on 23.12.08 . Again the complainant approached the O.P on 06.10.09 which was replied vide email on 28.10.09 .  It is the case of the O.ps that the respondent company have attained to all the letters and queries of the petitioner and in no way negligent on the issues . On 20.08.13 the petitioner was apprised by the O.Ps vide annexture-7  but the petitioner failed to take any step for revival of the policy. So the O.P no.1 and 2 peculiarly stated in para-29 in the written objection that the petitioner was trying to harass the company instead of he being harassed by the company . So the O.P.no.1 and 2 denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, prayed to this forum to dismiss  the complaint petition  as the petitioner has not come to this Forum with clean hands and the written objection filed by the O.Ps  supported by an affidavit  ,is the true facts of the case.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned counsel of the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

            It would not be out of way to mention here that in the averments the name of the petitioner have written Benu Nayak as well as in the written objection which is also the subject of discord . The  O.P  filed the documents copy of annexture-1 , the I.D card supplied by Election Commission of India  , it is specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner as Benu Nayak  and his date of birth as on 01.01.94  where as in the policy documents even though it is believed that the petitioner signed the blank policy documents  as Benu Nayak what led him to change his name from Benu Nayak to Benudhar Nayak is not clear nor supported by any valid and relevant documents on record. Coming to the question of the  date of birth from identity card it transpires that the date of birth of the petitioner was 31 years as on 01.01.94 but he has mentioned date of birth in the policy documents on 18.05.64 . So this is something mis-leading and not supported by any documents on record as submitted by the petitioner. So the grievance of the petitioner appears to be probably wrong and absurd .without any basis and supported material  documents on record . why the petitioner legally known to Benu Nayak signed the blank policy documents describing  himself to be   Benu dhar  Nayak and mentioning a wrong date of birth to be 18.05.64 in place of 01.01.94  is not clearly established by the petitioner.

The petitioner at the time of filing of this case appears to have not filed any relevant document  like H.S.C certificate or pan card etc for the proof  of his date of birth as well as his name including birth certificate but the Xerox copy of the proposal form bearing application No.91032211 go to disclose that the petitioner have been mentioned in English Capital letter as Mr. BENU NAYAK    and his date of birth written to be 18.05.64. whereas Benu Nayak signed this proposal form as Benudhar Nayak on 19.12.05 at BBSR. His signature and date appearing in proposal form is visible to necked eyes  to be the matured signature of a person. Besides this documents i.e proposal form no

other scrap of paper is available in the case record to establish the fact that the petitioner is not  Benu Nayak but Benudhar Nayak and his date of birth is not 18.05.64 but 18.05.60 . Thus  the simple prayer of the petitioner which is not at all supported  by any documents on record to move ahead for correction as prayed by the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that there was no latches on the part of the O.Ps  and the petitioner utterly failed to establish the cause of action to move this Fora  for relief.

            From the above discussion it is cristal clear that the petitioner has not come to this Forum with clean hands and accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief much less to speak of  limitation and other legally claimed remedy as  stated by the O.Ps. Therefore , the case of the petitioner is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps  and we observed that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief what so ever.                                                                    .                                                

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of October,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.