West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/123/2014

Ms. Sweta Agarwal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.123 /2014

                                                        

                                        Miss Sweta Agarwal…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1)I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life Insurance Co. Head Office,

2)Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life Insurance Co.,…...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Sk. Chandan Ali, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Rittik Ranjan Raj, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -22/04/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows: -

                       The complainant is a resident of Malancha, Kharagpur and the opposite parties deal in business of Insurance and sell different types of policies through it’s branch office-opposite party no.2 at Malancha, Kharagpur in the district of Paschim Medinipur.  The complainant purchased a policy from the opposite party no.2 under the Plan I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life Stage pension being policy no.13584646 for a term of 30 years w.e.f. 15/03/2010 with a yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant paid yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque no.842961 dated 17/03/2010 for the year 2010, vide cheque no.842963 dated 17/03/2011 for the year 2011, vide cheque no.842965 dated 07/03/2012 for the year 2012 and vide cheque no.842967 dated 11/03/2013 for the year 2013  of Rs.1,00,000/- each.  It is stated that the family members of the complainant also

Contd……………………..P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

purchased same policy from the opposite party no.2 and they also paid premium accordingly since 2010 to 2013.   With a view to know about the status of the policies, Sri Subhas Ch. Agarwal, the father of the complainant, wrote a letter dated 25/02/2014 to the opposite party no.2 and in response to the said letter, the opposite party wrote a letter dated 20/03/2014 to the complainant’s father intimating that the policies of the complainant and her family members have been foreclosed w.e.f. 18/03/2014 and in the  said letter, opposite party enclosed a cheque dated 18/03/2014 for Rs.36,201.60 paisa towards foreclosure value.  Being astonished and aggrieved by the said foreclosure of the policy, a notice dated 05/04/2014 was sent by the complainant by registered post with A/D to the Senior Manager of the opposite party no.2 through her Advocate Sri Arup Varma stating that the complainant has been cheated by the opposite party-company due to foreclosure of her policy in spite of regular payment of the premium.  In response to the said notice, opposite party-company sent a reply vide their letter dated 30/04/2014 thereby stating that the company on receipt of application forms and premium, the policy bearing no.16453956 along with other seven policies of the family members of the complainant have been issued in favour of the complainant and the other members of her family.  By the said letter, opposite party also stated that the company without getting into the merits of the case and as gesture of good will has decided to cancel eight policies bearing nos. 16453961, 17543879,16453438, 17545527, 16453956, 17547492, 16454954 and 17547474 of Rs.1,00,000/- each and adjusted the said premium amount towards renewal premium of the existing policies of the complainant and her family members   and the same will be collected and considered towards the premium for the year 2012 to 2013.  It is stated that the complainant has not received any other policy except the first policy.  From the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties, it appears that the opposite party sold four policies to the complainant and her family members in the year 2010 with yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each and the complainant duly paid her premium in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 regularly to the opposite party-company. Instead of depositing the premium for the year 2012 and 2013,  the O.P.-Company has sold another eight policies by the premium amount of the years 2012 and 2013 without any consent or request from the side of the complainant and her family members and when it is challenged, the opposite party-company realized their fault and to get rid of the same, O.P.-Company has tried to patch up the matter by stating that the premium amount of the last eight policies will be adjusted towards existing four policies of the complainant and her family members, so purchased in the year 2010 and such act of the opposite party tantamounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant and the family members never intended to purchase policies in

Contd……………………..P/3

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

the year 2012 and 2013 respectively and they never made any such application.  The opposite party-company has failed to discharge their service by concealing the fact of converting the premium amount towards purchase of new policies by making defaulter of the first policy with a view to gain illegally and to cheat the complainant as well as the other member of her family.  It is stated that the complainant never defaulted in running her policy of  the year 2010 and she has paid for her policy a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-  for  the period from the year  2010 to 2013.  For such act of the opposite party, the complainant has lost all faith and confidence reposed upon the opposite party-company and she is not inclined to continue any further relation with the opposite party-company.  Complainant and her family members have suffered great mental shock and financial loss for such illegal act of the opposite party-company and the opposite party-company is therefore liable to return the amount of premium of her policy amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest to the complainant. For their such act of failure to render their services by concealment of fact and by practicing fraud, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the tune  and Rs.5,00,000/-.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to return back Rs.4,00,000/- with interest, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, cost and other reliefs.   

                  The opposite parties–Insurance Company have contested this case by filling a lengthy written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party- Insurance Company that the present complaint is barred by limitation, that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party namely the Agent Mr. Debasish  Sinha, that the prayer for refund of the premium is completely against established law in relation to life insurance, that the risk stood covered for the period for which premium had been paid and hence there is no question of refund of any premium, that it is the settled principal of law that the issue under unit linked insurance policies are not the subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act, that the insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which travels beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted, that the complainant has concealed and suppressed the material and relevant facts of the case and has not come with clean hands, that it is settled law that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery etc. the Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court, that the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service and the present complaint is therefore not maintainable, that it is the settled law that if a policy holder does not pay the premium at due time, his or her policy

Contd……………………..P/4

 

 

 

(4 )

gets lapsed automatically as per terms of the policy, that the complainant paid only first two premiums of the policy and all premiums have remained unpaid since 12/03/2012 due to which the policy in question has been foreclosed on 18/03/2013 and foreclosure amount of Rs.36,201.60/- has been sent to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subject policy.  It is specifically stated that thereafter the complainant and her family members again approached the opposite party-company in the years 2012 and 2013 and submitted duly signed and filled in proposal forms for insurance of insurance policies as per details contained in said forms and  on believing the  information given by the complainant and her family members in the proposal forms to be true and correct, the opposite party-company issued new policies in favour of the complainant and other family members.  The complainant and her family members retained the policy documents and did not approach the opposite party with any discrepancies regarding the details mentioned in the proposal forms and they did not approach the opposite party- company for cancellation of the said policies during the Freelook Period.  They never approached the opposite party with any mis-selling complaint till 2013 and it was only on 05/04/2014 i.e. after almost a year of the insurance of last policy, the complainant for the first time approached the company through legal notice with the mis-selling complaint stating  that the policies were issued without consent. The opposite party duly replied vide letter dated 30/04/2014 informing the complainant that the company without getting into the merits of the case and as a gesture of goodwill,  has decided to cancel the eight policies and apply the said premium amount towards renewal premium to the existing four policies of the complainant and her family members  and the same will be collected and considered towards the premiums for the year 2012 and 2013.  The opposite party had further asked the complainant to send the signed advance discharge voucher for cancellation of the said new policies and for applying the premiums in earlier policies.  It is stated that the company has already processed the foreclosure payment in earlier four policies in accordance with  the policy terms and conditions and nothing more is payable after the said payment.  However, as a special case, the company is still willing to cancel the new policies and apply the premium in the earlier policies of the complainant and her family members.  It is stated that therefore the opposite parties have no deficiency in service and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Points for decision

1)Is the complaint maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                    Contd……………………..P/5

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

Decision with reasons

 Both the above points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

At the very outset, it is to be stated here that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

Admittedly, the complainant purchased a policy under the I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life Insurance Company from the opposite party with a yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/-  vide policy no.13584646 and the date of commencing of the said policy was on 15/03/2010 for a term of 30 years.  According to the complainant, she paid yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the year 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013.  But subsequently, the opposite party wrote a letter dated 20/03/2014 to the complainant’s father intimating that her policy has been foreclosed w.e.f. 18/03/2014 and they also enclosed a cheque dated 18/03/2014 for Rs.36201.60/- towards foreclosure value.  It is alleged by the complainant that despite regular payment of premium, she has been cheated by the opposite party company for such foreclosure of her policy.  Further according to the complainant, the opposite party Company vide their letter dated 30/04/2014 intimated that on receipt of application form and premium, the policies bearing no.16453956 along with other seven policies of the family members of the complainant have been issued in favour of the complainant and her family members.  It is alleged by the complainant that she along with the family members regularly paid the premium of their four policies in the year 2011, 2012 & 2013 but the opposite party Company instead of depositing the premium for the year 2012 and 2013 has issued another eight policies by the premium amount of  2012 & 2013 without consent and request from the side of the complainant and her family members.  It is further alleged that with a view to gain illegally and to cheat the complainant, those new policies have been issued by making defaulter of the policy.  In paragraph 13 of her petition of complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that the opposite party -company has practiced fraud on them and therefore she is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for their illegal act and unfair trade practice.  It thus appears that the complainant has made out a case of cheating and fraud against the opposite party - company.  In their written objection, the opposite party- company has denied the said allegations made by the complainant and has specifically stated that the complainant only paid first two premium of her policy and all premiums have remained unpaid since 12/03/2012 due to which the policy has currently been foreclosed on 18/03/2013 and foreclosure amount of Rs.36201.60/- has been sent to the complainant in

Contd……………………..P/6

 

 

 

 

( 6 )

accordance with the terms and conditions of the subject policy.  In paragraph 15 of their written objection, opposite party- Company has specifically stated that it is settled law that when there are allegation of fraud, forgery etc.,  the Consumer forum has got no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance has been placed on the ruling reported in II (2012) CPJ 151(NC) in the case of Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd.  Reliance has also been placed on the following judgements namely:-

1)Synco Industries V/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others 1 (2002) SLT 214 – (2002) 2 SCC 1.

2)V.S Badlani Vs Indian Bank, Appeal No.24 of 2005 before the National Commission.

3)Bhagwaniji D. Patel V/S the Chairman and MD, Indian Bank III (2011) CPJ 175 (NC).

In the present case before us, the complainant has also made out a case of cheating and fraud as discussed above against the opposite parties.  We have gone through the said ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and found that in the said case of Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli  Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it has been held that “Complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery etc. and trial of which would require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this commission – This complaint is an attempt to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on Court Fee payable in a suit before Civil Court – Complaint not maintainable”.  Since in this present case before us there is allegation of cheating and fraud, so in view of the said decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable and as such it is liable to be dismissed.

                                                             Hence, it is,

                                                          Ordered,

                              that the complaint case is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                 Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

               Dictated & Corrected by me

                                 Sd/-                             Sd/-                               Sd/-                           Sd/-

                           President                       Member                        Member                   President

                                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur