Delhi

East Delhi

CC/21/2019

INDERPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXIDE LIFE INS. - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 21/19

                                                

Shri Inderpreet Singh

S/o Late Shri Prabhjeet Singh

R/o CH-402, Abhimanyu Apartments

Vasundhara Enclave,

Delhi – 110 096                                                                           ….Complainant

 

                                                                Vs.         

 

Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, JP Techno Park No. 3/1

Milers Road, Bangaluru – 560 001

 

Also at:

Unit no. 407 to 412, 4^th Floor

Kanchenjunga Building, Barakhamba Road

Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001                                                …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 17.01.2019

Date of Order: 14.05.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Inderpreet Singh against           M/s. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

            The facts in brief are that complainant Shri Inderpreet Singh purchased a medical life insurance policy having policy no. 03420799 and 03447583.  This policy was launched by the company without the assistance of an agent.  The benefits of the policy were:

1. As per the insurance policy, the direct company code was to be generated and the same was generated bearing no. IP00749B2C wherein the incentive of 20%, the agent commission was supposed to be transferred to the saving accounts of the complainant by Exide Life Insurance Company Limited. 
2. Total 5 lakh Medical Insurance valid for 7 years for family of five members.
3. Accidental Insurance cover of Rs. 8 lakhs only
4. Normal life covered of Rs. 4 lakhs for a period of 15 years or till surrender of policy.

These benefits were to be rendered to the complainant, once the cheque was got cleared.  The schedule of the policy was as under:

S.No.	Policy holder name	Policy no.	Date of purchase	Amount paid	Receipt no.
	Inderpreet Singh	03420799	03.10.2016	39,999.48/-	02413622
	Inderpreet Singh	03447583	24.11.2016	19,998.70/-	03441552

 

            However, when the complainant found the policy, he was under utter shock as the policy was not the one which the complainant opted for him and his family members.  He also found that the benefits promised were not the same as represented by OP.  He was assured of a special policy with benefits of life cover as well medical benefits.  The complainant approached OP through their employees viz. Mr. Rohan Saxena and Ms. Ritika who had sold the policy to the complainant and put-forth his grievances.  The OP, on hearing the grievances of the complainant, assured them the medical test which was delayed due to non availability of time slots with the hospitals.  They also assured that the “issued policies will be switched to the proposed policy within 15 days of the medical test.”  He was further assured that the refund of the 20% of the premium amount was in process and will be transferred to the saving bank account of the complainant.

            It has further been stated that the complainant did not receive the schedule for his medical test nor the policy was ever converted into the proposed policy.  The employees of OP stopped responding to the calls of the complainant.  The complainant made a complaint at their email address which was of no avail.  He received a reply that 15 days’ time for raising the grievances after issuance of the policy, has expired and hence, the insurance company cannot do anything regarding the same.  The complainant without delaying, approached the branch office of the company at Nehru Place, Delhi, where the complainant was told to lodge a formal written complaint. Inspite of hearing, the company have misguided the complainant.

            It has been stated that the complainant had approached the authority on the grounds such as:

1. Life insurance policies being sold under misrepresentation and presenting/advertising false benefits.
2. Medical test (conditions to bring policy into effect) has not been conducted till date.
3. Incentive of 20% as promised not transferred till date in the savings accounts of the complainant, despite of getting cancelled cheque for the same by the company.
4. Deduction of payment of Rs. 39,999/-, 19,999/-  in respect of policy no. of 03420799, 03447583 but no benefit arisen till date, despite of compliance of every condition marked by the company at the time of selling the policy.
5. No satisfactory response from company and its personnel regarding the above said issues.

            She also approached to:

1. Complainants Officer, Exide Life Insurance
2. Head – Customer Service, Exide Life Insurance
3. IRDAI Grievance Cell

on the same grounds, however, he did not get any satisfactory response from these authorities. 

            He approached the office of insurance ombudsman on 21.02.2018 where the OP replied by way of mail dated 27.02.2018 that they were treating the said complaint as an exception and were ready for cancellation of one policy bearing no. 03447583. 

            The complainant have stated that this Forum was having pecuniary as well as the territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action have arisen at Vasundhara Enclave which falls within the territorial limits of this Forum.

 

Heard on admission.

            It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the jurisdiction of this forum was invoked on the basis of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum. 

            “Cause of action” has not been defined in the Code, it may be described as “a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed”[1], or “which gives the plaintiff right to relief against the defendant”[2].  Thus, “Cause of action” means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right or obtain a judgment[3].  To put it differently, cause of action gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit[4].

            The expression “Cause of action” have been defined in the case of Cooke vs. Gill[5], where Lord Brett observed:

“Cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court”[6].

            “Cause of action” does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.  Evidence of a fact should not be confused with the fact itself.

            “Cause of action” in its widest sense means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit and in its restricted sense, it means the circumstances forming the infringement of the right or the immediate occasion for the action – Niranjan vs. Union of India[7].  The court where “Cause of action” however small, arises has jurisdiction. 

To determine whether the facts averred by the plaintiff would or would not constitute “Cause of action”, partly or wholly, the court must consider whether such facts are necessary for the complainant to prove in order to support his right to the judgment.  In determining the said question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof should be considered.  “It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  Nevertheless it must be a ‘part of cause of action’, nothing less than that[8].

In the light of the above, proposition of law in respect of “cause of action”, it has to be seen as to whether the offer of acceptance of the proposal by the complainant at her residence forms “cause of action” or “part of cause of action” to confer jurisdiction on this forum.

            At the outset as to how the cause of action have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum have not been explained in the complaint.  During the course of arguments, counsel for complainant have argued that the complainant have made a proposal from his residence which they in turn accepted and issued the insurance policy.  This forms “part of cause of action” which have arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum.  If the facts narrated in the complaint are perused, it is noticed that the complainant issued a cheque drawn from his account and he was issued the policy after completing the required documents.  The complainant have not placed on record the details of the first premium except the receipt issued by Exide Life Insurance which have been issued by the company on 03.10.2016.  In this receipt, they have acknowledged receipt of Rs. 40,000/- as deposited towards premium of Exide Life Guaranteed Income Insurance Plan with policy no. 03420799.  Though, he has not put the statement of account for the year 2016 showing the amount of first premium paid, but he has stated in his complaint that he has made the payment by way of cheque.  There is nothing on record to show that any “cause of action” or “part of cause of action” have arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum. 

The plea taken on behalf of complainant that he has made a proposal from his residence which was accepted by Exide Life Insurance Company Limited will not constitute “cause of action” or “part of cause of action”.  The fact of his making the offer from his residence and acceptance of the said offer by Exide Life Insurance Company is a fact which is not necessary for the complainant to prove his right to obtain the judgement.  This is a case of evidence.  His making the offer from his residence at Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-96 will not be traversed by Exide Life Insurance Company.  The fact which will be traversed by insurance company will be that he has not exercised his option within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document (free look period).  Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of complainant that by making proposal and acceptance of the same by Exide Life Insurance Company from his residence at Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-96 forms “Cause of action” to confer jurisdiction on this forum. 

The line of argument which have been taken on behalf of complainant has been primarily in respect of Indian Contract Act and particularly “Formation of Contract” instead of concept of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act/Civil Procedure Code.  Thus, his argument stands rejected.    

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no “cause of action” or “part of cause of action” have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Thus, it deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President