Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is holder of Insurance Policy bearing No. 34940259 ICICI Pru IProtect Smart (Policy Commencement dated 06.05.2019) issued by Opposite Parties and this policy is regularly continued. Further alleges that the date of birth of complainant is 5.8.1976, name of mother is Suman Lata and name of father is Satish Kumar. On 17.05.2019 the complainant received the above noted policy kit (hard copy) which contains 36 pages. After going through the said policy, at page No. 30, the particulars regarding parents name, address, detail of previous insurance policies are incorrect. In this policy, the name of father of the complainant is wrongly mentioned as Jaswinder Kumar and name of mother of the complainant is wrongly mentioned as Neelam Rani. Not only this, there is also mistake in the address of the complainant. For the correction of the said particulars, the complainant went piller to post and also served so many e-mail requests and also served legal notice, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The written requests, e-mail and all other correspondence with the Opposite Parties to do the needful with regard to correction in the particulars are enclosed alongwith the complaint. Due to the aforesaid wrongful mistake on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment, which can not be compensated in the shape of money. As such, there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) To direct the Opposite Parties to issue fresh and upto date corrected and complete hard copy of the insurance policy in question, to make the payment of damages/ compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of causing mental tension and harassment from the last more than 2½ years and to direct the Opposite Parties to take appropriate action against the guilty officers of the Opposite Parties or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant for the redressal of their grievances.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Brief facts are that the subject policy was issued as per the mandate submitted by the complainant in the proposal form duly filled online alongwith duly signed customer declaration form submitted by the complainant on 25th February, 2019. The complainant himself had mentioned the name of his father as Jaswinder Kumar and the name of his mother as Neelam Rani in the proposal form. It is further submitted that being a highly educated person and an advocate, who is in the best position to understand the requirements of carefully reading and verifying the contents of a document before he signs it. The complainant himself has signed the customer declaration form stating that he had duly read, understood and verified the contents of the proposal form and as per the instructions of the complainant, the policy in question was issued. However, the Opposite Parties had duly assured to the complainant that all the changes have been taken note and accepted by the company. If the complainant had to get a new proposal, he had to cancel the policy and submit a new proposal form for same policy in the freelook period, which was duly mentioned in the proposal form. However, the complainant would have to undergo underwriting and medical examination basis the changed age, health status etc. The Opposite Parties have always acted as per the mandate given by the complainant in the proposal form and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C60 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Swati Nair, Legal Manager Ex.Ops1,2,3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops1,2,3/2 to Ex.Ops1,2,3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant is that the Opposite Parties have issued the policy so purchased by the complainant in which the father’s name, mother’s name and address of the complainant is wrongly mentioned and in this regard, the complainant went pillar to post and also served so many e-mail requests and also served legal notice, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The written requests, e-mail and all other correspondence with the Opposite Parties to do the needful with regard to correction in the particulars are enclosed alongwith the complaint, copies of which are Ex.C1 to Ex.C60 and it is contended that due to the aforesaid wrongful mistake on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the subject policy was issued as per the mandate submitted by the complainant in the proposal form duly filled online alongwith duly signed customer declaration form submitted by the complainant on 25th February, 2019. The complainant himself had mentioned the name of his father as Jaswinder Kumar and the name of his mother as Neelam Rani in the proposal form. It is further submitted that being a highly educated person and an advocate, who is in the best position to understand the requirements of carefully reading and verifying the contents of a document before he signs it. The complainant himself has signed the customer declaration form stating that he had duly read, understood and verified the contents of the proposal form and as per the instructions of the complainant, the policy in question was issued. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties because they have failed to produce the copy of said proposal form or any other document allegedly filled by the complainant to prove that the complainant himself has filed the proposal form and thereafter, the subject policy was issued as per the mandate submitted by the complainant in the proposal form duly filled online alongwith duly signed customer declaration form submitted by the complainant on 25th February, 2019. The complainant himself had mentioned the name of his father as Jaswinder Kumar and the name of his mother as Neelam Rani in the proposal form. Not only this, why the complainant who is an advocate and educated person will furnish the wrong information regarding parentage and particulars of his address. Whereas the complainant has produced the copy of his Aadhar Card as well as PAN card Ex.C50 and Ex.C51 to prove his parentage as well as address and other particulars regarding his correct identity and these documents have nowhere denied by the Opposite Parties by filing any cogent or convincing evidence on record who fully proves the high handedness on the part of the Opposite Parties because despite long correspondence and struggle of more than 2½ years in the matter, the Opposite Parties failed to correct the record regarding the policy in question and failed to issue the hard copy in this regard to the complainant. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Parties are certainly deficient and negligent by not giving the good services to the complainant On this count, the Complainant prayed before this District Consumer Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to issue fresh and upto date corrected and complete hard copy of the insurance policy in question, to make the payment of damages/ compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of causing mental tension and harassment from the last more than 2½ years and to direct the Opposite Parties to take appropriate action against the guilty officers of the Opposite Parties or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to issue fresh and upto date corrected and complete hard copy of the insurance policy in question and also to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands Only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.10.2021 till its actual realization. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
