DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.187/06.11.2008 Decided on : 22.04.2009 Kiran Bala W/o Sh.Raj Kumar Manchanda, Advocate, Sunam Road, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Pure Life Towers, 1089, Aapa Sahib Maratha Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai- 400 025. 2.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Water Works Road, Mansa through its Branch Manager. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.G.K.Mangla, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Smt.Kiran Bala wife of Sh. Raj Kumar Manchanda, a resident of Bhikhi, against ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai and Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act') giving them direction that they shall pay the damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to her for revocation of insurance policy and a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses Contd........2 : 2 : in the sum of Rs.5000/- . 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash with the opposite parties for issuance of two life insurance policies. The opposite parties issued Policy No.06771212 dated 22.11.2007 in the name of the complainant and deducted an amount of Rs.18843/- on account of premium, but refused to issue policy No.07343863. Vide their letter dated 17.1.2008 received by the complainant on 30.4.2008, she came to know that the policy has been revoked by the opposite parties without assigning any reason. However, the opposite parties issued bank cheque in the sum of Rs.6157/- in the name of the complainant which was delivered to her by the Opposite Party No.2 on 30.4.2008. The said cheque was valid for a period of three months. The complainant served notice dated 21.4.2008 upon the opposite parties for payment of amount of 2nd policy bearing No.07343863 but the opposite parties have failed to take any action. The complainant again served notice vide letter dated 7.6.2008 upon the opposite parties for release of amount, but no action was taken by them even on said notice. The complainant also contacted the Opposite Party No.1 on telephone and sent him email. Due to the inaction on the part of the opposite parties and non-refund of the amount, the complainant could not invest the same in other policy and was deprived of use of the amount, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because of which she has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer, under them, within its definition, given in the Act, because her proposal and issuance of policy, has been rejected by the opposite parties, for her omission, to subject her to medical examination and that the complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable to Contd........3 : 3 : be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that complainant submitted the proposal for issuance of insurance policies vide her application dated 12.11.2007 on her own life under the Company's Life Time Super Pension Plan of insurance launched by the opposite parties for payment of sum of Rs.3 lacs as assured amount. It is submitted that the amount deposited by the complainant in the sum of Rs.6157/- on account of first premium was accepted by the opposite parties with the rider that the same will be accepted provided she undergoes medical examination required for processing the same, but she failed to undergo the additional tests because of which her proposal was rejected and amount deposited by her was sent through cheque dated 16.1.2008 vide letter dated 17.1.2008 addressed to the complainant, through the Opposite Party No.2, but she did not encash the same within the period of its validity. The opposite parties again sent her cheque dated 24.4.2008 in the same manner and in the same amount, but the said cheque was again not encashed by the complainant. The complainant failed to encash even the third cheque dated 8.11.2008 sent by the opposite parties. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed. The factum of issuance of policy No.06771212 under the Company's Life Time Super Pension Plan dated 22.11.2007 against deposit of premium in the sum of Rs.18843/- had been admitted by the opposite parties, but it is submitted that so far as policy in question is concerned, complainant cannot claim the same on account of her omission for not subjecting herself to medical examination and to encash the cheques sent for payment by the opposite parties. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavits, Exhibits C-1 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-10 before closing evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.OP-1 Contd........4 : 4 : to OP-7, and closed evidence, on their behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the out set, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.G.K.Mangla, Advocate, has submitted that as the proposal of the complainant, has not been accepted for issuance of policy No. 07343863, as such, she is not consumer under the opposite parties within the purview of its definition given in the Act, and her complaint is bound to fail on this technical ground alone. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh. A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, has submitted that as the amount has been accepted alongwith the application form by the opposite parties, as such, the complainant has become their consumer, of the insurance policy, which the opposite parties have not issued in arbitrary manner, as such, complaint is maintainable in the present form. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant because the opposite parties in their written version have admitted that complainant filed application for issuance of insurance policy under the Company's Life Time Super Pension Plan launched by them and deposited the amount of initial premium. As such, in our opinion, even if, the offer made by the complainant is rejected by the opposite parties, because of any omission on her part, she falls within the ambit of Consumer because word 'service' defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act also includes Potential Consumer. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that opposite parties have not sent any list of doctors on their panel so as to enable, the complainant to approach them and to subject herself for medical test and cheques were sent by them through Opposite Party No.2 after expiry of dates of their validity with the intention to harass the Contd........5 : 5 : complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because of which she has been deprived of her right to invest the money in other policy and to make use of the same. Learned counsel further argued that even the opposite parties are also not justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant without affording her opportunity of being heard, as such, they cannot escape the liability to pay damages and costs to her. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that offer made by the complainant was rejected by the opposite parties after she failed to subject herself for additional medical test inspite of repeated instructions issued to her and she has failed to get the cheques sent to her encashed, as such, there is no deficiency in service on their part or on account of which opposite parties be burdened with costs and compensation, as prayed in the instant complaint. 11. As stated in the earlier part of the order, the factum of submission of proposal form for issuance of policy under the Company's Life Time Super Pension Plan and deposit of amount of Rs.6157/- by the complainant on account of initial premium, is admitted by the opposite parties in their written version. As per copy of letter dated 10.11.2008, Ext.OP-7 addressed to the complainant, policy for issuance of which she submitted the proposal form was subject to fulfillment of requirements and terms and conditions of the scheme, as applicable from time to time. It is also provided therein that she should note that insurance cover would be effective only after the policy is issued. She was also issued refund cheque bearing No.011425 dated 8.11.2008 in the sum of Rs.6157/-, copy of which form part of Ext.OP-7. In letter dated 22.11.2007 Ext.OP-2, written to the complainant, she has been advised to approach Dr.Sat Paul Jindal, whose complete address of Mansa has been given therein. As such, we find merit in the case of the opposite parties that there is no deficiency in service on their part, so far as rejection of her claim to issue policy No. Contd........6 : 6 : 07343863, is concerned. 12. However, the opposite parties have acknowledged the receipt of letter sent to the complainant informing them that she was unable to encash the cheques sent by them on account of refund of amount of Rs.6157/- because they were delivered to her after expiry of period of their validity. As admitted by the opposite parties in their written version, three cheques were sent to the complainant on account of refund of amount of initial premium paid to her, but they have not examined any official posted in their office. They are supposed to maintain the record, viz. date of receipts of the cheques by the complainant and mode of their dispatch to her. As such, they have withheld the material documents, supposed to be in their possession on account of which adverse inference has to be drawn against them to the effect that had they brought on record, they must have proved against them. They have submitted the affidavit of Ms. Reshmi Bhattacharya, Ext.OP-4. As mentioned therein, she is working as Consumer (Legal Manager) in their Bombay office. Even in the said document, nothing has been mentioned regarding the dates of delivery of the cheques by the official posted in the office of Opposite Party No.2. The dates of delivery of the cheques are also not found mentioned in the written version. On one occasion, the cheques have been issued as per letter dated 3.5.2008 Ext.C-3 due to stoppage of payment. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that opposite parties are deficient in rendering service to the complainant, so far as refund of the amount deposited by her in the sum of Rs.6157/-, is concerned. There is no evidence that complainant has got encashed the third cheque issued by the opposite parties for refund of the amount or the said payment has been received by her in any other manner. It is also not the plea of the opposite parties that the said amount stands refunded to the complainant. She has been deprived of the use of money for considerable time, as such, she is also entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from Contd........7 : 7 : the date of deposit till date of payment. Since, we are inclined to award interest, therefore, amount of compensation cannot be awarded to the complainant at the same time. Moreover, consumer is to be compensated for deficiency in service and not for remote damages suffered by her because of deficiency in service on the part of service provider. However, the complainant is entitled to seek adequate amount on account of filing of the instant complaint because opposite parties failed to settle her claim inspite of service of notices. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.6,157/- to the complainant with simple interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- on account of costs, incurred by her for filing of instant complaint, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The liability of both the opposite parties to make the above payment shall be joint and several. 14. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 22.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
