MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 26.7.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1611 of 2009.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- in mutual funds and for this purpose, he gave the cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP No.3 (agent of OPs No.1 and 2). It was submitted that the OPs converted into two cheques bearing No.130847 for Rs.65,000/- and No.130848 for Rs.35,000/- both drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd and also signed a blank application forms on the assurance and guidance/instructions of   OP No.3.  The complainant was shocked, when he received a Life Insurance Policy and Hospital Care Policy for Rs.35,000/- on the places of mutual funds for which he had applied for.  It was further submitted that the complainant informed the same to OP No.1 at Mohali Branch about this mistake through phone then OP No.3 accepted the mistake of their side and also make a request to the complainant that the same would be converted into mutual funds later on within free look period of policy. It was further submitted that when the free lock period of the policy was expired because of negligence of OPs, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 12.12.2008, in reply to which the OPs denied their mistake and alleged that the complainant himself had signed and sent two application forms to the office of the OPs for the said policies. It was next submitted that the complainant had signed only single blank application form as per the instruction of OP No.3. After receiving the notice, the Manager (Operations) of OPs No.1 and 2 contacted the complainant and assured that the policy would be converted into mutual funds very soon. It was told by the Manager to the complainant to take back Rs.65,000/- without interest because all the mechanism was dealt with by their Mumbai Head Office and procedure would take sometime.  It was further submitted that on this assurance of the Manager (Operations) of OPs No.1 and 2, the complainant accepted the aforesaid amount without interest but till date, the policy had not been converted into mutual funds, despite several requests and visits. The complainant again sent a legal notice to the OPs on  4.12.2009 through Registered AD and UPC. The OPs replied the said notice that they were not dealing with mutual funds as they were life insurance company.  The aforesaid acts of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1 and submitted that the OP No.1 had only acted as a banker for the transfer of the funds, through issuance of DD as per the instructions of the complainant and the OP No.1 had no other role to pay in the same. It was pleaded that the OP No.3 was not their agent and the pay orders were issued as per the instructions received by the bank.  All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         In the reply filed by OP No.2 it was pleaded that the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company was a separate entity legally as well as otherwise and had nothing to do with the business conducted by other institutions or agents including the ICICI Bank Ltd. It was further pleaded that the OP No.2 had a separate legal, financial and administrative set up from that of the ICICI Bank Limited and it is not liable for the acts and conduct of OPs No.1 and 3. It was next pleaded that the complainant had signed after reading and understanding the documents and the insurance policy was issued to the complainant only when a proposal form signed by him along with cheque of Rs.35,000/- on 21.12.2007, was received, in which he had opted for combo product of lifetime gold along with hospital care plan. It was further pleaded that the complainant had received the proposal form along with policy documents on 27.12.2007 & 31.12.2007 but the complainant never used the free look period for the cancellation of the policy.  All other allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       None appeared on behalf of OP No.3, despite service. Hence, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

6.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

7.       The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as nothing has been put on record by the complainant to support his contentions.

8.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal. 

9.       We have heard Sh.J.K.Verma, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.Mukhbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1, Sh.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2 as none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 to argue the case.

10.     The Counsel for the appellant submitted that he deposited Rs.1 lac with the OPs, for investment in mutual funds, but they (OPs) obtained his signatures on blank forms, which were converted into proposal forms for the issuance of insurance policy. He further submitted that the OPs were not only deficient in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.     The learned counsel for respondent No.1/OP No.1 argued that the OP No.1 has acted as a banker for the transfer of funds as per the instructions of the complainant. It is further argued that the OP No.3 was not their agent and the pay orders were issued as per the instructions received by the bank. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.

12.     The learned counsel for respondent No.2/OP No.2 argued that as the OP No.2 is a Life Insurance Company, hence dealing with the Life Insurance only and not with the mutual funds. The above said disputed policy was issued to the complainant after receiving the proposal form duly signed by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.

13.       After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the OP No.1 has only acted as a banker and pay orders were issued as per the instructions received by it. Even we don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 because being Insurance Company, it had issued insurance policy as per the proposal form, which was duly signed by the complainant. In case, the complainant was not satisfied with the above said policy then he was at liberty to repudiate the same within 15 days i.e. during the free look period but he had failed to do so. Hence, this version of the complainant that the insurance policies were wrongly issued to him cannot be accepted because the OPs have proved that nothing was concealed from the complainant and the insurance policies were issued after receiving the proposal form signed by the complainant. In the present appeal, the OP No.1 has categorically denied that the OP No.3 is their agent and in rebuttal, the complainant has failed to produce any document to prove that the OP No.3 was the agent of the OPs. Hence, this contention of the complainant is also not acceptable. The learned District Forum rightly concluded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. We don’t find any merit in the appeal filed by the complainant and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

14.       In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

15.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge       

Pronounced.                                                                        

4^th April, 2011.