Date of filing : 21.11.2017
Judgment : Dt.27.8.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Mrs. Jayanti Shome and Mr. Anjan Shome alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2) Mrs. Bijayinee Mohanty, (3) Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and (4) ICICI Bank Ltd.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainants being introduced by the ICICI Bank official to the representative of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company agreed to obtain Insurance Policies under impression that the policies would cover their lives and obtained three policies being Nos.19121464 & 19301307 in favou5r of the Complainant No.1 and another policy having No.19121351 in favour of the Complainant No.2 by paying Rs.5,00,000/- but on receiving the said policies the Complainants found that the policies being Nos.19121464 and 19301307 was issued in the name of Avanti Shome, daughter of the Complainants, who lives in a foreign country. Similarly, another policy being No.19121351 was issued in the name of Ayan Shome, son of the Complainants, who also resides in a foreign country.
The Complainants have stated that on receiving the said policies they immediately brought the matter to the notice of their Banker and the Insurance Company but no result had been yielded and being convinced by the Insurance Company the Complainants compelled to pay 2nd premium of Rs.5,00,000/- under impression that they would get back the deposited amount after payment of 2nd installment which did not happen in reality and the Complainants finding no other alternative issued Advocate’s letter dt.3.7.2017 but the OPs paid no heed to the letter and, therefore, the complainant by filing the instant Consumer Complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest, to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation and other reliefs.
The Complainant annexed copies of correspondences, with the OPs through e-mail dt.18.5.2017, 28.5.2017, Advocate’s letter dt.16.6.2017, 3.7.2017.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stated inter alia that they were ready to settle the disputes amicably and sent the policy documents to the registered mail ID of the Complainant in accordance to Clause 6(2) & 4(1) of the IRDA Regulations 2002 but the Complainant neither took any step within freelook period not did approach the Company for redressal of their grievance.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 have further stated that only on 18.5.2017, the Complainant No.2 had communicated to the OP No.3 & 4 through e-mail admitting some facts and prying for taking exceptional stand in favour of them. It is stated by the OP Nos.1 & 2 that the company received proposal form signed by the Complainants for a Wealth Builder II Plan and two Elite Life II Plan on annual premium of which is Rs.1,01,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively against which policies being Nos.19121351, 19121464 and 19301307 were issued on 31.1.2015, 31.1.2015 and 20.5.2015 respectively but the Complainant did not raise any issue within freelook period and approached the OP Nos.1 & 2 on 16.6.2017. It is further stated by the OP Nos.1 & 2 that being educated person the Complainants had signed the form understanding the meaning of the clause written thereon which is the contract between the parties. Moreover, the Complainants obtained several policies from the OP company on previous occasions so there were not at all laymen and accordingly prayed for passing necessary order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 annexed proposal forms, copy of direction upon Management teams for taking steps.
The OP Nos.3 & 4 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the material allegations stated inter alia, that the Complainants obtained Insurance policy from the OP No.1, which is a separate legal entity and no service like borrowing money had been availed by the Complainant although they are A/C holders in the Bank.
These OPs have further stated that the OP Bank received a letter dt.3.7.2017 which was replied on 27.9.2017. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank. Moreover, no cause of action actually arose against them and these OPs prayed for dismissal of this case.
The OP Nos.3 & 4 annexed policy related document, Declaration Forms signed by the Complainants, reply dt.27.9.2017.
The Complainants and the OPs adduced evidence followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant has not received policy document yet and therefore, has been being deprived of getting advantage of freelook period.
Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos.1 & 2 submits that this Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the Complainants have not lodged any complaint, not contradicted the signature put by them on the proposal form.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP Nos.3 & 4f submitted that no previty of contract between the Complainant and the OP Nos.3 & 4 exists at all.
These OPs relied upon the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in (1) 111 (2015) CPJ 56(NC) [Reliance Life Insurance Co. td. VS K.S.Eshwarappa & Reliance Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.], (2) 1(2016) CPJ 190(NC) [JANSATTA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITY LTD. vs KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR], (3) 1(2015 CPJ 766 (NC) [Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. & Anr Vs JAGDISH BANKELAL AGARWAL].
Point for determination
- Whether the case is maintainable.
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OP.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
Admittedly, the OP No.1 issued two policies ensuring life of two policy holders with assured sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in total out of which an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid as to premium.
The Complainants have alleged that they were agreeable to have insurance coverage for their own lives and accordingly instructed the OP No.1 to issue policies in favour of them but after getting the policy documents in their hands they found that they were made nominees in the said policies whereas their son and daughter were made therein as insured.
It is evident that the Complainants agreed to avail service to be provided by the OP Insurer and accordingly paid consideration as to premium.
It is further evident that value of the said service is Rs.30,00,000/-.
Section 11(2) of the C.P.Act provides – the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain any complaint where the value of goods or service hired and compensation claimed does not exceed Rupees Twenty Lac.
It is, therefore, evident that value of the service is not within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
Hence, the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point Nos.2 & 3
Since the point No.1 is decided negative there is no scope to go into the merit of this case.
In the result, the Consumer Complaint does not succeed.
Hence, ordered,
That CC/663/2017 is dismissed being not maintainable.
