Punjab

Moga

CC/17/15

Jagtar Singh Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satish Kumar Jain

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 15 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 23.01.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 12.07.2017

 

Jagtar Singh Mann aged about 42 years s/o Amar Singh, resident of VPO Kishanpura Kalan, District Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       ICICI Bank Limited, Improvement Trust, G.T. Road, Moga, through Branch Manager.

 

2.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. G.T. Road, Moga, through Branch Manager.

 

3.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Prolife Towers, 1089, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai- 400025, through Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Vineet Mittal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Gurmeet Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos. 2&3.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against ICICI Bank Limited, Improvement Trust, G.T. Road, Moga, through Branch Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to adjust/enter the amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the policy "Lifestage Assure". Further they may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and any other appropriate relief which this Forum deems fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that believing the representations made by opposite parties, the complainant had purchased a life insurance policy namely "Lifestage Assure" bearing policy no.11474198 date of commencement 08.03.2009 and premium was Rs.2 lakhs. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2 lakhs with ICICI Bank i.e. opposite party no.1 on account of premium in the month of April, 2011. The deposit vouchers were duly issued to the complainant, which were signed by one Kulwinder Singh official of the Bank. Thereafter, the amount was also entered in the said policy and a premium receipt to this effect was also issued. Thereafter, in the month of August, 2016 the complainant obtained a statement of account regarding his policy and the complainant was surprised to know that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs has not been shown in his account, whereas the amount has been duly deposited by the complainant and receipt was duly issued to him. Thereafter, the complainant requested all the opposite parties to correct his account and to show the deposit of amount of Rs.2 lakhs, but all in vain. Further legal notice dated 16.09.2016 was issued by the complainant to opposite parties, which was replied vide letter dated 28.09.2016, vide which, the complainant was requested to send the payment details, which were duly sent by complainant to opposite parties, but nothing was done. The act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The amount was duly entered and the receipts were duly issued, but thereafter the amount was withdrawn from the account of the complainant without any notice or consent. Due to the act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant suffered great harassment, mental tension and agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present dispute, which is complex and complicated in nature and requires voluminous evidence for its adjudication and thus the matter in dispute is entitled to be referred to Civil Court; that the complaint is time barred; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On one hand the answering opposite party no.1 has been impleaded unnecessarily and on the other hand one Kulwinder Singh, who received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly from complainant has not been made party to the complaint, which is the most necessary party in order to probe the true facts; that no deficient services have been rendered to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and as such, the complaint being false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious may kindly be dismissed with compensatory costs. Moreover, the alleged dispute in question does not relate to answering opposite party i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd., however it relates to opposite party nos.2 & 3 i.e. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited. On merits, it has been submitted that the answering opposite party deals in banking business and does not deal in insurance business and the matter in dispute does not relate to opposite party no.1. It has been further submitted that the customers of the bank used to deposit and withdraw the amounts for banking purposes in their own bank accounts and to the accounts of others and the customers do make various transactions in various types of accounts in usual course of business, but it is wrong and denied that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy from the branch of opposite party no.1 as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that a person namely Kulwinder Singh i.e. alleged employee of opposite party no.1 used to sit in the branch office of opposite party no.1. Said Kulwinder Singh has never remained an employee of opposite party no.1 nor he has been having any concern with opposite party no.1 Bank. It is further wrong and denied that said Kulwinder Singh had issued any deposit vouchers or premium receipt in question. The alleged premium receipts seems to be manipulated, faked and self contradictory and the opposite party no.1 Bank has not issued such alleged receipts or pay in slips to the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs has been made.

4.                Opposite party nos.2 & 3 also appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The policy in question is a Unit Linked Policy as clearly mentioned in the product description of Policy Terms and Conditions, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable; that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum. The complainant has failed to prove any cause of action against the answering opposite parties and in the absence of the same the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant in his complaint has alleged that on the assurances of officials of opposite party company, the complainant had invested the amount into the subject policy. But the complainant has miserably failed to make them party in the present complaint. The present complaint suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In the present complaint the issue of involved are of serious nature, which require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken, which is not possible in a summary trial. Furthermore, the complainant has submitted a forged and fabricated pay in slip before this Forum; that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. In the present case, the opposite parties have strictly acted as per terms and conditions of the policy contract. The terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract. This Forum cannot pass any order in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy contract; that the complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever as he has failed to produce any document which suggests that he has made the payment to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of answering opposite parties; that the complainant has sought a relief from this Forum, which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subject policy.

                   Further they submitted brief facts of the case that the opposite party company received duly signed proposal form alongwith First Premium Deposit. Acting on such mandate as provided by the life assured the policy was issued in the name of the complainant. The opposite parties after receipt of duly filled proposal form alongwith the other requisite documents and the amount of first yearly premium deposit had issued the subject policy. At the time of taking the policy complainant was very well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. He even signed the proposal form confirming the truthfulness and correctness regarding the details provided in the proposal form. In accordance to clause 6(2) & 4 (1) of the IRDA, Regulations, 2002, the company had sent the Policy Documents to the communication address mentioned in the proposal form. He had ample opportunity to go through and understand the terms and conditions of the policy including the benefits payable clause. The policy kit was duly delivered vide Bluedart Courier. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not approach the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, premium frequency, fund value and the policy terms and conditions, neither did he approach the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period thereby implying that he had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the subject policy continued. Opposite parties submitted that in this case also a copy of proposal form was sent along with the policy documents to the complainant. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. The opposite party company was in receipt of only 4 premiums under the said policy totalling amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the instant case, after investigation it was found that the DD/Cheque no.818481 as reflecting in the Premium receipt attached by the complainant bearing no.A8150386 was erroneously applied to the complainant's policy. Actually this receipt belonged to one Ms.Mohinder Kaur, who holds policy no.13399081 with the company (Rs.2,00,000/- premium annual). The opposite party company received a complaint from the said Ms. Mohinder Kaur. She has also provided with her bank statement showing the debit of the said cheque. After investigation it was found that the said complaint was genuine. Further to this letter dated March 11, 2015 was sent to the complainant informing the erroneous credit of the above amount and that the company will be transferring the said amount to the correct policy of Ms. Mohinder Kaur. The company in the said letter also informed complainant that if he has made any payment in the month of April towards his policy then to submit the Bank Details for the company to look into the same. But till date the opposite party company has not received any such statement from the complainant. The complainant has till date not produced any documentary evidence to prove his premium being deposited for the year 2011 as alleged in his company. The complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever as he has failed to produce any document which suggest that he has made the payment to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. The opposite party company never received any payment vide such Pay in Slips. Futhermore, it is submitted that the Pay in Slip mentions that Cash has been paid, but the premium receipt shows that the payment has been received vide cheque/DD no.818481. The malafide intent of the complainant is clearly proved on this account only and the cooked up story of the complainant completely falls flat. Complainant herein also sent a legal notice dated 16^th September 2016 and 21^st October 2016 where the amount of Rs.2 lakhs as alleged in the present complaint was mentioned to be credited as the same was not reflecting in the complainant's premium statement. The answering opposite parties by their reply letters dated 28^th September, 2016 and 5^th December asked the complainant to provide confirmation from his bank on the said debit of Rs. 2 lakhs on a specific format. The complainant however has not produced any such confirmation from bank nor has he produced any bank statement in support of his contention. This clearly shows that the present complaint was filed as an afterthought and this shall be dismissed on this ground alone. The policy terms and conditions for all products of the opposite party company is approved by the Regulator i.e. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and any benefit under the policies becomes payable strictly in accordance to the policy terms and conditions. Insurance being a contract between the policyholder and the company both are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. In parawise reply, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Aniket Sood, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. as Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. Whereas, opposite party nos.2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms.Reena Kamath, Assistant Manager Legal, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as Ex.OP-2, 3/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2, 3/2 to Ex.OP-2, 3/5 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The case of the complainant is that in the year 2009, he purchased a Life Insurance Policy from opposite party nos. 2& 3, through opposite party no.1 with an annual premium of Rs.2 lakh. In April, 2011 he deposited an amount of Rs.2 lakh with opposite party no.1 bank on account of premium with opposite party nos.2 & 3. One employee namely Kulwinder Singh of opposite party no.1 received the said amount and issued deposit voucher regarding the same. This amount was also entered into the said policy and receipt to this effect was also issued to complainant, copy of the deposited voucher is Ex.C-2 and premium receipt Ex.C-3. In the month of August, 2016, the complainant obtained the statement of account regarding his policy, but in this statement of account Rs.2 lakh has not been shown, whereas he deposited this amount and receipt was duly issued to him. He requested the opposite party no.2 to correct his account and to show the amount of Rs.2 lakh in his account, but all in vain.

9.                On the other hand, opposite parties submitted that the complainant purchased insurance policy from them after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy and the policy documents were duly issued. The complainant paid only four premiums under the policy amounting to Rs.2 lakh each totalling Rs.8 lakhs. After investigation, it was found that the cheque no.818481 dated 29.04.2011 is reflecting in the premium receipt attached by the complainant bearing no.A8150386 was erroneously applied to the complainant's policy. Actually this receipt belonged to one Ms. Mohinder Kaur who holds policy no.13399081 with the company with annual premium of Rs.2 lakh. Opposite party nos.2 and 3 received a complaint from said Mohinder Kaur. She was also provided with her bank statement showing the debit of the said cheque. After investigation, it was found that the said complaint was genuine. So, a letter dated 13.03.2015 was sent to complainant informing the erroneous credit of above amount and that the company will be transferring the said amount to the correct policy of Ms.Mohinder Kaur. The complainant was also informed that if he has made any payment in the month of April towards his policy then to submit the bank details with the insurance company to look into matter, but till date the complainant has not submitted any such statement with the company. He has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his version that he deposited premium in the year 2011, as alleged by him. The insurance company never received any payment vide such pay in slip. Moreover the pay in slip mentions that cash has been paid, but the premium receipt shows that the payment has been received vide cheque. The malafide intent of the complainant is clearly proved on this account only and the cooked up story of the complainant completely falls flat. Moreover, the complainant alleged that he paid the amount to one Kulwinder Singh, who was allegedly employee of opposite party no.1, but there was no employee with opposite party no.1 namely Kulwinder Singh and the complainant has not impleaded such Kulwinder Singh as party in this complaint. He filed the present complaint only to get undue advantage on the basis of wrong premium certificate which was erroneously issued by opposite party nos.2 & 3 in the name of complainant instead of Mohinder Kaur. The present complaint deserves dismissal.

10.              Now, the case of the complainant is that he deposited the premium regarding his insurance policy with opposite party nos.2 & 3, in opposite party no.1 bank in cash, which was received by one Kulwinder Singh employee of opposite party no.1, who issued receipt regarding it and further opposite party nos.2 & 3 issued premium receipt in favour of complainant. But when in the month of August, 2016, he checked his statement of account, then he came to know that the amount of Rs.2 lakh was not reflecting in his account, which was deposited by him in April, 2011. To prove his version he produced copy of pay in slip Ex.C-2 and premium receipt Ex.C-3. Whereas the stand of opposite parties is that complainant never deposited this amount with them and they issued premium receipt erroneously in favour of the complainant instead of one Mohinder Kaur on the basis of cheque dated 29.04.2011 issued by Mohinder Kaur. When it came to the notice of opposite parties on the complaint of Mohinder Kaur, they investigated the matter and found said Mohinder Kaur was correct and they corrected her account accordingly and this amount was transferred to her account. They duly informed the complainant regarding it vide letter dated 13.03.2015, copy of the same is Ex.OP-2, 3/3 and they also produced copy of statement of account of Mohinder Kaur with opposite party no.1 bank Ex.OP-2,3/2, which shows that cheque no.818481 on the basis of which, the premium received Ex.C-3 is issued in favour of the complainant is belonging to account of Mohinder Kaur and this cheque is duly encashed from the account of Mohinder Kaur and she transferred this amount in the account of opposite party nos.2 & 3. The version of the complainant is that he paid the premium amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash to one employee of opposite party no.1 namely Kulwinder Singh, but it is clear from the premium receipt Ex.C-3, which is issued on the basis of cheque not in cash deposit. Further from the perusal of pay in slip Ex.C-2 vide which the complainant allegedly paid the premium amount, shows that vide it cash received by one Kulwinder Singh and it did not deposit with bank in the account of opposite party nos.2 & 3. In this pay in slip the name of the account holder is written as J.S. Maan and account number is mentioned as policy number. There is no where the name of opposite party nos.2 & 3 or their account is mentioned. This pay in slip is not issued by opposite party no.1 bank. Moreover, the complainant alleged that he paid this amount to one Kulwinder Singh, but he did not made Kulwinder Singh as party in the present complaint to prove his version. Whereas, it is specifically denied by opposite parties that there was any employee namely Kulwinder Singh working with them. The pay in slip Ex.C-2 is not seems to be genuine and it is manipulated afterwords. The complainant failed to prove that he ever paid the amount of Rs.2 lakh as his policy premium in April, 2011. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant want to took advantage of wrong receipt issued by opposite party nos.2 & 3 in his favour on the basis of cheque deposited by some other policy holder namely Mohinder Kaur in her account, which was erroneously issued in favour of the complainant instead of Mohinder Kaur, which was afterwords transferred on the complaint of Mohinder Kaur in her account and the complainant concocted the entire story and prepared false pay in slip.

11.              In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 12.07.2017

                                                (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                        Member                                President