Delhi

North East

CC/9/2021

Ashok Kumar Nischal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 09/21

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Ashok Kumar Nischal S/o  Lt. Sh. SwaranDass, R/o First Floor of property Bearing no. B-2/120 and B-2/121 ( Plot no. 120 and 121 in Block B-2) Yamuna Vihar, under Ghonda Residential scheme, Shahdara Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.                     2.	Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Through it Director/Managing Director/Head/C.E.O/ Concerned Officer at:- SF Plot no. 6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005   Also at:- Dare House 2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600001   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  Through its Director/Managing Director/Head/CEO/ Concerned officer at:- Metro Station, Videocon tower, 6th Floor, E- 1 Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandawala extension, New Delhi near Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055 Also at:- 1089 Appasabeb, MaratheMarg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400025   Branch Office:- 503, 5th Floor, Mercantile House, 15, K G Marg, Delhi -110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:  DATE OF ORDER:

15.01.21 07.06.23 06.10.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 have entered into an agreement for enabling loan from Opposite Party No.1 bearing no. XOHEELD00003446596 in January 2020. The loan was taken for 180 months and was disbursed in March 2020. The Complainant stated that both the addresses through the Opposite Party No.1 had conveyed/undertaken that loan shall be insured for the entire loan period of 180 months for a sum of loan insurance amount of Rs. 8,12,360/- given by Opposite Party No.2 ICICI pru super protect-credit. The Complainant stated that when mater policy no. 61249366 reached Complainant then he came to know that the same has insured the loan amount only for period of 8 years whereas both Opposite Parties have charged insurance for entireperiod of 15 years. The Complainant stated that he received documents in month of August 2020 and after receiving documents he has written letters and also sent emails to Opposite Party No.2 but no reply given by Opposite Party as to why even after charging the premium for entire 15 years insurance, why loan was insured only for the 8 years. The Complainant stated that he had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 28.10.20.The Complainant stated that both Opposite Parties had not given policy as per term and conditions as agreed between Complainant and Opposite Party.  Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the entire insurance amount of Rs. 8,12,360/-  with interest @ 12 %  and Rs. 50,000/- as mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of the faulty insurance provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

2. Opposite Party No.2contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party has received a duly filed member consent form for a ICICI Pru super Protect Credit GP 1 on February 26, 2020 for a period of 8 years having a corresponding single premium of Rs. 8,12,361/- along with the consent letter for accepting the lower policy cover term. That based on the information provided in the consent form, the policy bearing number 68023343, was issued on February 27, 2020 and the premium amount was calculated as per the set standards as given above.

Policy No.
Policy Plan	ICICI Pru Super Protect Credit GP 1
Policy Status	In Force
Amount Paid	N.A
Life Assured	Ashok Kumar Nischal
Master Policy Holder	Cholamandalam securities Limit Chennai
Sum Assured	Rs. 1,13,00,000/-
Proposal Received Date	Wednesday, February 26,2020
Risk Commencement Date	Friday, January 31,2020
Policy Issue Date	Tuesday, February 27, 2020
Premium	Rs. 6,88,441/-

 

3. That in accordance to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyhonder’s Interests) Regulations, 2017, the company had sent the policy documents to the Complainant’s registered address on March 05,2020 vide Blue Dart Couriers vide AWB no. 37447201142 and the same received by the Complainant on March 07, 2020 as per the records of the Opposite Party and the records of the courier company.
4. That Complainant did not approach the company with any discrepancy in the freelook period and then for the first time approached the company on August 23, 2020 via an email wherein he raised the mis-selling allegations and admitted to have received the policy documents and that he could not read the same before due to some family emergency.
5. That in order to address the queries of the Complainant, the Opposite Party telephonically called the Complainant, and while raising the Complainant clearly stated that he could raise dispute with respect to the policy due to Delhi Riot which took place in the month of March 2020 and Lockdown, categorically implying that he had received the policy documents in the month of March 2020 itself and has twisted the facts in the present complaint to suit his convenience and dissuade the Hon’ble forum.
6. The Opposite Party addressed the complaint of the Complainant on October 2020 via email stating that the Opposite Party cannot comply with the request of the Complainant to either change the policy term to 15 years or cancel the policy and refund the premium thereunder along with compensation, as he did not approach in the freelook period.
7. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated October 28,2020 raising the same disputes as in the complaint and the same was replied to via letter dated December 16,2020 stating that since the Complainant did not avail the freelook provision the company cannot now go back on its terms.
8. Thus as per abovementioned events, it is clear that the Complainant was well aware of the terms of the subject policy as he himself had consented to a policy term of 8 years at the corresponding premium of Rs. 8,12,316/- and has distorted the facts of the case to gain unjust monies.
9. The contents with respect to Opposite Party No.1 and the loan details do not merit a reply from the Opposite Party for want of knowledge. The Opposite Party submits that we had received a duly filed member consent form for an ICICI pru Super Protect Credit GP 1 on February 26,2020 having the policy term of 8 years and corresponding premium of Rs. 8,12,316/- along with the member consent form we received a consent letter for accepting the lower policy cover term. That based on the information provided therein the policy bearing number 680233343,was issued on February 27, 2020. That it is vehemently denied that the Opposite Party took the premium for 15 years and provided cover for a period of only 8 years. It is submitted that the member consent form as submitted to the Opposite Party clearly had the policy term as 8 years and a corresponding premium of Rs. 8,12,361/- as evidenced below. Therefore, the Complainant was well aware about what the policy term and the corresponding premium.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

10. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

11. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

12. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Ms. Anjali Singh, Assistant Manager Legal of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

13. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for theComplainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 have entered into an agreement for enabling loan from Opposite Party No.1 in January 2020. The loan was taken for 180 months and was disbursed in March 2020. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party No.1 had conveyed that loan shall be insured for the entire loan period of 180 months for insurance amount of Rs. 8,12,360/- given by Opposite Party No.2. It is further stated by the Complainantthat when policy documents reached to theComplainant he came to know that the Opposite Party has insured the loan amount only for period of 8 years whereas both Opposite Parties have charged insurance for entireperiod of 15 years. The Complainant received the documents in month of August 2020 and he has taken up the matter with the Opposite Party after receiving the documents why even after charging the premium for entire 15 years insurance, loan was insured only for the 8 years. The Complainant further stated that he was not supplied policy as per terms and conditions as agreed between the Complainant and Opposite Party. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.  The Complainant did not lead any evidence regarding payment of premium of insurance policy for the period of 15 years instead of 8 years.
14. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that after received a duly filled member consent form for the period of 8 years having a corresponding single premium of Rs. 8,12,361/- along with the consent letter for accepting the lower policy cover term. It is further stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that in accordance to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2017, the company had sent the policy documents to the Complainant’s registered address on March 05,2020 and the same received by the Complainant on March 07, 2020 as per the records of the Opposite Party. The Complainant did not approach the company with any discrepancy within the freelook period and first time approached the company on August 23, 2020 via an email wherein he raised the mis-selling allegations and admitted to have received the policy documents and that he could not read the same before due to some family emergency.  On receiving  email from the Complainant, Opposite Party replied to the Complainant by  stating that the Opposite Party cannot comply with the request of the Complainant to either change the policy term to 15 years or cancel the policy and refund the premium thereunder along with compensation, as he did not approach in the freelook period.
15. In the present case, the Complainant did not deny of signing Member Consent Form in which it is clearly mentioned that the policy term is for 8 years and the same is also clearly mentioned in the policy dated 27.02.2020 issued to the Complainant and received by the Complainant on 07.03.2020. Thus, the Complainant is failed to prove any deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
16. Order announced on 06.10.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President