<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 28th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1880/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.A.N.Ravi Kumar,S/o A.R.Nagabushanam Naidu,Aged 52 years,FF9, 1st Floor, ATRIA VILLA,Dattathreya Temple Road,Malleswaram,Bangalore – 560003.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager,ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,62/1, II Floor, Prestige Corniche,Richmond Road,Bangalore – 560025.Service Quality Branch:The Head – Service Quality,ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,402/B, Interface Building,No.11, Link Road, Malad (West),Mumbai – 400064.Advocate – Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed housing main loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from ICICI Bank in the month of December 2002. By the end of May 2006 he was in due of only Rs.8,93,000/- to the ICICI Bank. In the month of April 2006 he availed top up housing loan of Rs.2,95,479/- from ICICI Bank repayable with interest at the rate of 10.5% p.a. He opted to cover both the housing loan for 5 years that is up to 4th May 2011 by taking ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ offered by the OP. OP collected a premium of Rs.43,767/- with regard to the main loan and Rs.11,712/- with regard to the second top up loan. Complainant thought that OP will issue policy to both the loans, but when he checked his account during June 2008 and verified the policy issued by the OP to his utter shock and surprise OP issued only one policy with respect to the top up loan and not to the main loan. Immediately he contacted the OP to rectify the said defect committed by them by addressing several letters. Though OP sent the policy, it again referred to only top up loan. On insistence OP came up with the defence that due to operational problems they could not generate the policy pertaining to the main loan account. Further it is stated that ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ has been discontinued. Then OP offered two options either for full refund or for option to take a similar policy ‘Home Safe + Plan’. Complainant told that he is not interested for refund because the purpose for which he got covered the insurance will be defeated. With all that in the next breathe OP came up with the contention that as he is aged above 50 years the only remedy available for him is refund not for ‘Home Safe + Plan’ policy. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though OP collected a huge amount of Rs.43,767/- as a premium with regard to the main loan in the year 2006 but failed to issue the policy even after lapse of more than two years. The hostile attitude of the OP caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ is offered only to the persons who are aged between 20 to 50 years. But as on the date of the proposal submitted by the complainant, he was above 50 years so he is not entitled for the insurance coverage under the said scheme. It is further contended that through oversight and by mistake OP collected the premium hence they are ready to refund the said premium. Though they made such an offer, complainant failed to receive the same. Complainant without understanding the terms and conditions of the said ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ opted for the same, for that OP can’t be blamed. The other allegations made by the complainant are all baseless. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a housing loan (main loan) of Rs.12,00,000/- from ICICI Bank during the year December 2002 and the out standing amount after the payment of the EMI as on May 2006 was Rs.8,93,000/-. It is also not at dispute that in April 2006 he availed a top up housing loan of Rs.2,95,479/- from ICICI Bank repayable with interest. Now it is contended by the complainant that he opted to cover both the loans for five years. In that regard he approached the OP on 05.05.2006. OP under took to cover the said loan under the scheme ‘Loan Shield Insurance Policy’. Complainant intended to take the policy up to May 2011. The fact that OP collected Rs.43,767/- as a premium towards main loan and Rs.11,712/- as a premium towards top up loan is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that when he verified the policy in the month of June 2008 to his utter shock and surprise OP has not covered main housing loan under the said policy though collected a premium of Rs.43,767/-. He immediately contacted the OP and made correspondence. Then OP sent the insurance policy but again it referred to the top up loan not to the main loan. Correspondence made in that regard are produced. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk the irresponsibility and obligation. It is strangely contended by the OP that due to operational problems they could not generate the said policy pertaining to the main loan in May 2006. When they have collected the huge premium of Rs.43,767/- if they failed to issue the policy covering the risk as contemplated under the scheme then it is a standing example of deficiency in service. It is further contended by the OP that the ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ has been discontinued. When it is discontinued is not known, no such documents are produced.<br /> <br /> 9. According to the complainant when he insisted the OP to issue the policy retrospectively it went in vain. On the other hand OP came forward to cover risk under the “Home Safe + Plan”. Though complainant was agreeable for the same again OP did not extend the said coverage under the said scheme also. OP wants to wash of his hands by contending that as on the date of alleged proposal complainant was aged more than 50 years and that scheme is meant for group of persons aged between 20 to 50, for this defence also there is no basic proof.<br /> <br /> 10. Of course complainant has produced certain documents to substantiate that his date of birth is 11.08.1955. There is nothing to discard the contention of the complainant in that regard. So viewed from any angle the arbitrary act of the OP in not issuing the insurance policy amounts to deficiency in service. Mere an offer made by the OP that they are prepared to refund the premium amount of Rs.43,767/- is no solution or relief towards the mental agony, financial loss suffered by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case wherein complainant deserves certain relief.<br /> <br /> 11. Of course when OP says that ‘Loan Shield Insurance Plan’ scheme has been discontinued. There is no point in directing the OP to issue the policy under the said scheme as prayed by the complainant. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the said premium amount along with interest and pay compensation and litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund premium amount of Rs.43,767/- collected towards main housing loan together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from May 2006 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />