JUDGEMENT

Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he holds an account in the ICICI Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch since long years and used to operate the said account regularly.  In the month of April-2012 complainant when called on the above said branch of the said bank, op no.2 Souvik Mitra apparently appeared as a staff of the said branch and the said bank insisted the complainant to make an insurance policy under the op no.1 and they also allured that monetary benefit shall be achieved by the complainant for the said insurance policy and due to repeated insistence of the op, complainant paid a premium of Rs. 40,000/- per year commencing from 17.04.2012 to be ended after ten years, being the policy No.16571183.

Thereafter complainant received a communication/written information from the op no.1 in the month of November, 2012 wherefrom it is found that a sum of Rs. 4,671/- had been deducted under the head of other charges which is much higher than the rate so laid down in the policy paper.  So, complainant later on decided not to continue the said policy and informed the op no.1 to that effect under his letter dated 16.04.2013 requested the said op no.1 to refund the accumulated money from the account NAV of the complainant immediately but the said op no.1 declined to comply with the said request by sending a communication vide their letter dated 22.04.2013 to the complainant.

Thereafter the complainant sent another representation dated 03.07.2013 addressed to op no.1 and op no.2 jointly stating that the entire fact and demanding refund of the accumulated money of the complainant immediately without any further delay lying with the op no.1 and sent the representation through the Regd. Post with A/D to the op no.1 and op no.2 separately.  Thereafter op no.1 sent a reply to the aforesaid letter of the complainant vide their letter dated 16.07.2013 addressed to the complainant stating that the accumulated money of the complainant will be refunded 5 years later and such sort of act is completely illegal and unjustified and it tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the op as because op did not give any relief/redressal for which the complaint is filed for redressal.

On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the instance case is not maintainable and complainant did not submit any application for return or withdraw of the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the document and in fact as per the policy the complainant is not entitled to get back the said period before expiry of 5 years and complainant did not opt any option for return from where it can be presumed that he was satisfied with the terms and conditions and fact remains that complainant availed the said policy after understanding and being fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and duly paid the first premium of Rs. 40,000/- for the years 2012 and the policy document and policy information page clearly stated that Service Tax and Education Cess as applicable would be levied on all the charges and after passing of one year, complainant made a request vide its letter dated 16.04.2013 for closing of the policy and refund of the amount paid under the said policy, alleging that the higher charges has been deducted.  The said letter was duly replied by the answering op vide its letter dated 22.04.2013.

As complainant failed to pay the premium for the second year which was due on 17.04.2012 and hence the policy lapsed and further discontinued due to non-payment of the premium by the complainant and in view of the above circumstances the present complaint is not maintainable.

                                              Decision with reasons

On in depth study of the complaint and written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is clear that complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- as premium and out of that Rs.800/- was deducted as premium allocation charges and service charges and education cess to the extent of Rs.4,677.86 paisa was deducted.  But op has failed to satisfy under what circumstances for education cess and service tax of Rs.4,677.86 paisa was deducted.  At best out of the total paid amount of Rs.40,000/-, Rs. 1,200/- may be deducted as education cess @ 3%.  But op has failed to prove by any cogent document that at the time of opening the said payment complainant signed such consent letter that he is willing to pay Rs.4,677.86 paisa as deduction and Rs.800/- further deduction out of paid premium of Rs.40,000/-.  No such document is filed by the op to prove that complainant gave such consent in respect of such deduction etc.  On the contrary it is found from the application form there is such statement in premium receipt and statement of account that premium invested of Rs.39,200/- and Rs.800/- was deducted as premium allocation charge.  But no amount was deducted for other purposes including education cess for rs.4,677.86 paisa.  So, it is clear that after issuance of first premium receipt and statement of account op deducted the said amount of Rs. 4,677.86 paisa as Service Tax and Education Cess but that was not in the first premium receipt and statement of account.  Then it is clear that complainant was satisfied to invest that premium of Rs.40,000/- per year subject to deduction of premium allocation charges of Rs.800/- and balance of net premium of Rs.39,200/- shall be invested.

But ultimately op actually invested Rs.37,299.80 paisa.  So, no doubt complainant was dissatisfied about such deduction when first premium receipt-cum-statement of account supports that Rs. 39,200/- was invested as first premium.  But subsequently op deducted another amount of Rs.4,677.86 paisa and the net premium amount was deposited Rs.37,299.80 paisa that is no doubt an unfair trade practice on the part of the op and it is proved from the above fact that op adopted unfair trade practice because initially when complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- for opening the said insurance policy, ICICI Bank issued first premium receipt and statement of account on 16.04.2012 in the name of Prasanta Mukherjee stating the summary of investment premium amount of Rs.40,000/- and premium allocation charge deducted of Rs.800/- and net premium invested of Rs.39,200/-.

But subsequently back behind the knowledge of the complainant, op deducted other charges including Service Tax and Education Cess to the tune of Rs.4,677.86 paisa and that was not informed to the complainant.  But subsequently op came to learn when he received unit statement as on 17.10.2012.  So, it is clear that initially op did not give such information and did not accept such consent letter from the complainant that complainant is willing to open this policy subject to deduction of total Rs. 5,677.86 paisa out of the total deposited premium out of the invested Rs.40,000/-.  So, no doubt it is unfair trade practice.

Moreover in the application form there is no such whisper that the said amount shall be deducted against the investment by op.  So, apparently it is proved that op allured the complainant to purchase the policy and relying upon the version of the op employee, op opened it and op received a statement of account dated 16.04.2012 which does not show that deduction would be of Rs.5,477.86 paisa out of the total investment of Rs.40,000/-.  No doubt it is an over act on the part of the op to deduct such amount back behind the knowledge of the op and against the policy application from as filed by the complainant.  So apparently it is found that op by adopting a deceitful manner managed to procure the policy.  But it is the provision of law that policy holder must be informed about the pros and cons of the policy and he must not be deceived by any manner and consent letter of the intended insured must be there and it must be satisfied by the op that complainant came to learn about pros and cons of the policy and about deduction of the investment of the policy and in this case op has failed to prove that.

So, we are convinced to hold that the contract as made in between the complainant and ops was made by the op in a deceitful manner for which we are convinced to hold that the entire contract was made by the op in a deceitful manner and deduction was made back behind the knowledge of the op and in the application form no such deduction theorization was there in this regard and for the above reasons we are convinced to hold that the entire contract was nothing but a contract in a deceitful adopted by the op and complainant was deceived by the op for which we are convinced to hold that there is no sanctity of valid contract in between the both parties and for which complainant is entitled to get back the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- when the entire contract in between the parties was made by the op by adopting unfair trade practice and deceitful manner.  No doubt the private insurance company and banking sector are adopting such sort of deceitful manner of practice in opening the bank account, ATM, Gold/Credit Card and insurance policy and customer at large are being deceived by such private bank and insurance companies in most of the cases.  But we the Fora are present everywhere but we are not giving proper attention for which so many cases casual order are being passed.  But C.P. Act is here and there to protect the interest of the consumers but in reality protection is not given by the Fora in most of the cases because technicalities are there by which Fora are being guided.  But truth is that technicalities should be voided in all respect and in this particular case it is proved that the whole contract was practically procured by the op by alluring the complainant without giving him a chance to realise the fate of premium and about the total deduction out of the premium and such an act on the part of the op is no doubt unfair trade practice and such a contract is a void contract when it is procured by allurement and without giving any chance to realise about the deduction amount out of the deposited amount and in the above circumstances we are convinced to hold that complainant rightly pointed out the moral practice of the op which was not actually noted in the first premium receipt and statement of account dated 16.04.2012 as issued by the op and for which we are convinced to hold that op adopted unfair trade practice and by deceitful manner they managed to sign the complainant’s application form of the insurance policy and truth is that complainant paid Rs. 40,000/- and deduction would be Rs.800/- for premium allocation charge but in lieu of that op subsequently deducted another charges as Service Tax and Education Cess to the extent of Rs.4,677.86 paisa that is no doubt illegal and it is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the op and for which we are convinced to hold that complainant has been able to prove the allegation against the op and no doubt op is bound to return a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with litigation cost and compensation as awarded by this Forum when negligence and deficiency on deceitful manner of trade and unfair practice as adopted by the op is proved beyond any manner of doubt.

Thus the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the ops.

Op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund and pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.  For causing harassment and for adopting unfair trade practice, ops jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

For adopting unfair trade practice and for procuring the said policy by adopting deceitful manner, op nos. 1 & 2 are imposed a punitive damages @ Rs.10,000/- each for adopting unfair trade practice and for upholding the said business in a deceitful manner and the present punitive damage is imposed only to check such sort of trade practices by the ops failing which for each day’s delay penal interest @ Rs.200/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and this penal proceeding will be imposed under the provision of C.P. Act and for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.