1.      Heard Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant, Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha, Advocate, for opposite parties-1 and 2 and Mr. Bikas Jha, Advocate, for opposite party-3. 

2.      Surinder S Chahal has filed above complaint for directing ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and others (the opposite parties) to pay (i) Rs.1.05/- crores, along with benefits accrued on it and interest @24% per annum from the date of deposit till actual  payment, (ii) Rs.20/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) the costs of the litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case.

3.      The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:-

(a) Surinder S Chahal (the complainant) was original resident of village Ballo majra, district Sasnagar Mohali. For last 44 years, he was residing in USA and acquired citizenship of that country also. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (opposite parties-1 and 2) was an insurance company and provides different types of insurance services. Mr. Sandeep Kumar (opposite party-3) was an authorised agent/platinum advisor of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (opposite party) and was working as investment advisory in the name and style of “Vansh Investment”. 

(b) In March, 2007, Sandeep Kumar (opposite party-3) approached the complainant and introduced himself as Managing Business Partner/Agent of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited. Sandeep Kumar cajoled and enticed the complainant to obtain “Life Time Super Pension Policy” of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, assuring that it provided more benefits than any other available policy of that nature. The complainant obtained “Life Time Super Pension Policy”, in which, annual premium was Rs.35/- lacs and policy term was 10 years. The complainant timely paid yearly premium, in March, 2007, March, 2008 and March, 2009.      

(c)    The complainant visited Branch Office at Phase-9, Mohali and obtained statement of account of his policy on 31.12.2010. Then he was informed that his “Life Time Super Pension Policy” was closed and another policy was issued in his name, in which, there was balance of Rs.9234876.22. Then the complainant made inquiry from Sandeep Kumar as to how his policy was closed and new policy was issued. Then he asked to meet him. On meeting, he informed that original policy has not been closed rather new account, in continuation of original policy was opened but his money was locked for a period of three years.

(d)   The complainant was not satisfied with the explanation given by Sandeep Kumar and gave him an email dated 14.01.2011 but no reply was given. Then the complainant lodged a complaint at branch office of the Insurer on 08.02.2011 but no reply was given. The complainant deposited cheque No.079214 dated 18.03.2011 of the annual premium vide Receipt No.61392038 but it was not en-cashed. Vide email dated 20.04.2011, opposite party-1 replied that they had done investigation in the complaint but as complaint was made from another email ID, which was not registered with them as such, in order to maintain confidentiality, no reply could be given. The complainant gave email dated 20.04.2011 to change his email ID, which was refused on the ground that the policy had been closed. 

(e)     Opposite party-1 vide email dated 21.07.2011, informed that the documents relating to new policy were available at Mohali branch. Then the complainant visited Mohali branch and was permitted to examine the documents of new policy. Going through the documents, the complainant came to know that a letter dated 17.03.2011 was given in his name, surrendering old policy and requesting to transfer Rs.one crore to new Policy No.13608974.

(f)      The complainant made a complaint to Grievance Cell on 22.08.2011 that he had never moved any application for close of his old policy and transfer money to new policy. But nothing was done. The complainant went to branch office Mohali and demanded copies of the documents surrendering his old policy and to transfer his money to new policy then the papers were supplied on 20.01.2012, which contained his forged Ration Card, Letters of Food & Civil Supply Department. The opposite parties-1 and 2 did not complete investigation and were taking unusual time. Then this complaint was filed on 26.11.2012, complaining unfair trade practice.

4.      The opposite parties-1 and 2 filed their written reply on 25.04.2013 and contested the complaint. They stated that earlier the complainant filed CC/235/2009 before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sasnagar, Mohali, claiming incentive of Rs.4.25/- lacs, on Policy No.04736956. District Forum dismissed said complaint with cost of Rs.2000/- vide order dated 03.08.2009. The prayers made in this complaint were available to the complainant in CC/235/2009 but not made as such, the reliefs claimed in the present complaint were barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The complainant obtained Policy No.04736956 which was “Life Time Super Pension Plan” in March, 2007 and deposited three annual premium of each of Rs.35/- lacs. The complainant surrendered above Policy on 16.03.2010 and on his request and submitting required documents for “ICICI Prudential Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 was issued in March, 2010, in which, Rs.one crore was transferred from previous policy as premium and balance amount of Rs.2314169.08 was paid to the complainant through cheque No.A603562, which was en-cashed on 31.03.2010. After about one year, the complainant made complaint that he did not surrender the old policy and new policy was issued without any request on his behalf. This complaint has been filed concealing material fact of refund of Rs.2314169.08 to the complainant on 31.03.2010. When the complainant made complaint in respect of issue of new policy, he was given an option for reinstatement of old policy on deposit of Rs.2314169.08, along with interest and the premium due, which was not accepted by the complainant. The complainant submitted  (i) duly filled up and signed pay out request (full surrender request of the earlier policy bearing No.04736956 dated 16.03.2010), (ii) Indemnity bond dated 16.03.2010, (iii) ID proof, (iv) Bank details, (v) Duly filled up and signed proposal form for new policy (vi) Duly signed benefits Illustration Form and (vii) Duly signed application for transfer of funds. The complainant had an option to terminate his policy within 15 days but he did not raise any objection to the new policy within 15 days. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties-1 and 2. The complaint has been filed on false allegations. The complaint alleged fraud being committed, which are complicated issue of facts and cannot be determined in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.    

5.      Opposite party-3 filed his separate written reply on 25.04.2013. He stated that opposite party-1 and 2 felicitated different awards and accolades and designated him as Platinum Advisor. Mr. Rajinder Singh Chahal, younger brother of the complainant came in contact of opposite party-3 in the year 2007 and took five policies of opposite party-1 on his advice. Mr. Rajinder Singh Chahal introduced the complainant with opposite party-3, as he was interested in “Life Time Super Pension” policy. The complainant fully understood the benefit of policy and filled up Proposal Form on 10.03.2007 and gave amount of first premium. On deposit of the papers and premium, Policy No.04736956 was issued to him on 12.03.2007. Opposite party-3 did business of more than sixty lacs in the year 2007, which were deposited with opposite party-2 through him as such he was entitled to get an Indica car by way of incentive. Which created a greed in the mind of the complainant and he began to demand incentive. He filed CC/235/2009 before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sasnagar, Mohali, claiming incentive of Rs.4.25/- lacs, for Policy No.04736956, which was dismissed on 03.08.2009. In March, 2010, fund value of Policy No.04736956 had become Rs.12827259.46. Finding a good appreciation, the complainant decided to invest higher amount and he asked to change his policy in to “ICICI Elite Pension II” policy for annual premium of Rs.one crore. He submitted all the required papers for surrender of old Policy and transfer of Rs.one crore into “ICICI Elite Pension II” policy  on 16.03.2010. On his request and submitting required documents “ICICI Pru Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 was issued in March, 2010, in which, Rs.one crore was transferred as premium and balance amount of Rs.2314169.08, after adjusting transfer charges, was paid to the complainant through cheque No.A603562 dated 26.03.2010, which was en-cashed on 31.03.2010. The complainant had an option to terminate his policy within 15 days but he did not raise and objection to the new policy within 15 days. It is only in March, 2011, when fund value of new policy had gone down, then he started challenging issue of new policy on various false allegations.   

6.      The complainant filed his Rejoinder Reply to the written reply of opposite parties-1 and 2 on 23.05.2015. Similar Rejoinder Reply to the written reply of opposite party-3 was filed on 23.05.2015. In which, the facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. It was admitted that the complainant received cheque No.A603562 dated 26.03.2010 of Rs.2314169.08, which was en-cashed on 31.03.2010. But it has been stated that this cheque was handed over to his brother by respondent-3, who informed that it was profit bonus on the policy. It is also admitted that the opposite parties-1 and 2, vide letter dated 31.10.2012 (served on 27.11.2012) had given an option for reinstatement of old policy but stated that by that time the complainant had already prepared the Consumer Complaint, which was filed on 28.11.2012. Facts relating to surrendering old policy and applying for issue of “ICICI Pru Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 by transferring Rs.one crore from the account of old policy have been denied. The complainant filed various documentary evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Surinder S. Chahal and Additional Affidavit of Evidence of Surinder S. Chahal. The opposite parties-1 and 2 filed documentary evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Sudha Sharma, Chief Manager Law. Opposite party-3 filed documentary evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Sandeep Kumar. All the parties filed their written synopsis.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The issue between the parties is as to whether the complainant surrendered his “Life Time Super Pension” Policy No.04736956, issued on 12.03.2007 and applied for issue of “ICICI Pru Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 by transferring Rs.one crore from the account of old policy on 16.03.2010 or not? 

8.      In the complaint, the complainant has concealed the fact of receipt of cheque No.A603562 dated 26.03.2010 of Rs.2314169.08, which was en-cashed on 31.03.2010, but in Rejoinder Reply he admitted this fact and took plea that this cheque was handed over to his brother by respondent-3, informing that it was profit bonus on the policy. So far as the papers submitted for surrender of “Life Time Super Pension” Policy No.04736956 and Proposal Form for issue of “ICICI Pru Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 by transferring Rs.one crore from the account of old policy on 16.03.2010, the complainant took plea that these papers were fabricated. But the fact remains that the premium of old policy was payable in March, 2010. The complainant is totally silent as to why he had not paid premium of old policy in March, 2010, which was otherwise payable in normal course. From the conduct of the complainant in not depositing premium of old policy in March, 2010 and accepting cheque No.A603562 dated 26.03.2010 of Rs.2314169.08, it is proved that he had surrendered old Policy No.04736956 and submitted Proposal Form for issue of “ICICI Pru Elite Pension-II” Policy No.13608974 by transferring Rs.one crore from the account of old policy on 16.03.2010. In March, 2011, when fund value of his new policy had gone down, then he started saying that he had never surrendered his old policy. When he was confronted with the papers submitted by him for surrender of old policy and Proposal Form of new policy, then he took plea that it were fabricated by the opposite parties. In these circumstances deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties are proved. 

9.      This Commission, vide order dated 03.12.2015, directed opposite parties-1 and 2 to deposit admitted amount of Policy No.13608974. Then opposite parties-1 and 2 deposited Demand Draft No.006117 dated 21.12.2015 of Rs.12256143.79, which was withdrawn by the complainant. Therefore, we hold that nothing remains due against the opposite parties towards Policy No.04736956 and Policy No.13608974. 

ORDER

  In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is disposed of holding that entire dues of the complainant under Policy No.04736956 and Policy No.13608974 has been satisfied through Demand Draft No.006117 dated 21.12.2015 of Rs.12256143.79, by opposite parties-1 and 2.