Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 619

                                                                   Instituted on     : 18.10.2021

                                                                   Decided on       : 26.03.2024

Smt. Sushila Devi wd/o Late Sh. Pankaj  Malik s/o Sh. Satyawan Malik aged 42 years r/o H.No.43-P, Sector-2, Rohtak.

                                                                   ……….………….Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company Limited, through Branch Manager, Ashoka Plaza, Opposite Myna Tourist complex, Delhi road, Rohtak.
2. Priyanka, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Agent No.01404255 R/o Lokesh Kamboj, Model Town, Damla Government School Damla, Yamunanagar.
3. Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority through its Chairman, B-14/A, ChhatrapatiShivajiBhawan, Qutub Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-110016.

                                                ...........……Respondent/opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Parveen Kumar Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Rajeshsharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                   None for opposite party no.3.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are thather husband namely Sh. Pankaj Malik was employed with government of Haryana as JBT Teacher. He was a subscriber of New Pension System(NPS) with Permanent Retirement Account number PRAN as 110061815288. He was expired in a road side accident on01.09.2020. After his death the complainant was entitled to receive the entire amount  of NPS scheme. Hence she requested the employer of the deceased to process the payment of said amount to the complainant.  The complainant was told that she would get the entire amount as per instructions issued by the Government of Haryana vide file no.8/21/2011-PFRDA dated 19.06.2012 and National Securities Depository Limited, Mumbai vide ref. no.CT/IK/MT/PP/201235842 dated 06.09.2012 which provides that upon death of subscriber the entire accumulated pension wealth(100%) would be paid to the nominee/legal heir of subscriber and there would not be any purchase of annuity/monthly pension. The claim amount was to be paid by opposite party No.3 but the opposite party No.3 forwarded the claim of the complainant to opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 allotted the said claim file to opposite party no.2. Opposite party No.2 played fraud with the complainant and by forging signatures of the complainant got issued IPRU Guaranteed Pension(IMMD) Plan vide policy No.A1724324 for the entire accumulated pension wealth(100%) of Rs.1056711.37/- having annuity monthly instalment of Rs.5041.16. The said policy was to be commenced from 12.08.2021 and first annuity payment was to be made on 12.09.2021. The said policy was having a freelook period of  30 days as the same was issued as electronic policy through distance marketing mode. The complainant received the policy on  27.08.2021 and sent an email to the opposite party on 30.08.2021 and 04.09.2021 for the cancellation of alleged scheme/policy. The complainant also returned the original policy document to opposite party no.1 through speed post and as per tracking report, the said documents were delivered to the opposite party No.1 on 11.09.2021. But the opposite party no.1 refused to cancel the policy. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1056711.37 alongwith interest @ 15% from the date of deposit till its realisation, to pay Rs.500000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1in its reply has submitted thaton 28^th July 2021, opposite party company received a duly filled online application form and Customer Declaration form from the complainant bearing number OS17400870 requesting for issuance of policy under ICICI PruGuaranteed Pension Plan(immediate annuity). Based on the information provided in the application form, the company issued a policy bearing number A1724324 on 14.08.2021. The annuity amount opted for was Rs.5041/- with a monthly annuity payout frequency. The company had issued the policy based on the duly filled proposal form submitted to the company alongwith  a duly signed customer declaration form bearing the signatures of the complainant alongwith all the required documents such as PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Photo, Cheque etc. which were in the possession of complainant and which the company cannot access on its own. It is further submitted that the complainant did not approach the company for cancellation of policy within the prescribed free look period. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back served as per the track record. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and as such opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.07.2022 of this Commission. Notice issued to opposite party No.3 also received back duly served. But the opposite party No.3 did not appear and sent its reply by post submitting therein that  complainant herself has duly selected opposite party No.1 for purchase of annuity as evident from her withdrawal form dated 14.07.2021 submitted to NPS. It is further submitted that upon processing  of the physical copy of the Exit withdrawal form 20% accumulated corpus amounting to Rs.263169.64 was credited to the complainant’s bank account  on 08.02.2021 which was the same account number as provided in the Exit withdrawal form. It is prayed that complaint qua opposite party No.3 may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.                Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed his evidence on dated 20.12.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 and closed his evidence on 06.12.2023.  However opposite party No.3 did not appear and did not file any evidence.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submission filed by complainant as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                In the present case as per complainant, her husband  died in a road side accident on 01.09.2020 and he was subscriber of New Pension Scheme(NPS) with Permanent Retirement Account number PRAN as 110061815288 to his nominee/legal heirs. After his death the complainant was entitled to receive the entire amount  of NPS scheme amounting to Rs.1056711.37 which was to be paid by opposite party no.3.  But the opposite party no.3 forwarded the claim to opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 allotted the said claim file to opposite party no.2. Opposite party No.2 played fraud with the complainant and by forging signatures of the complainant got issued IPRU Guaranteed Pension(IMMD) Plan vide policy No.A1724324 for the entire accumulated pension wealth(100%) of Rs.1056711/- having annuity monthly instalment of Rs.5041.16. Complainant received the alleged policy document on 27.08.2021. She sent an email to the opposite party on 30.08.2021 and 04.09.2021 for the cancellation of alleged policy. A written request for cancellation of policy was also sent to the office of opposite party no.1 situated at Mumbai, which is placed on record as Ex.C4 and the same was  dispatchedon 07.09.2021. To prove the same complainant has placed on record registered post receipts Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 which shows that the alleged letterswere dispatched to the office of opposite party no.1 at Mumbai on 07.09.2021 . The alleged letter was received by the opposite parties on 11.09.2021 which is proved from the track record Ex.C9 & Ex.C10. On the other hand contention of the opposite party no.3 is that 20% accumulated lump sum amounting to Rs.263169.64 has been credited to the complainant’s bank account on 02.08.2021 and for the 80% of the accumulated lump sum, complainant has opted ICICI ASP scheme and had confirmed the request in online mode on 06.08.2021 and money has been transferred to ASP account on 12.08.2021 and the policy no.A1724324 has been issued to the complainant. The monthly pension of Rs.5041.16  started from 12.09.2021.

7.                We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the complainant she received the policy Ex.C8 on 27.08.2021. She was not agreed with the alleged policy so she made a cancellation request through emails. Copy of emails Ex.C11 and Ex.C12 dated 30.08.2021 shows that complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the policy. Complainant again sent email Ex.C14 dated 25.09.2021  for cancellation of policy. As per complainant, the date of policy is 14.08.2021 and the complainant received the same on 27.08.2021. She sent a cancellation request through email on 30.08.2021. Meaning thereby the cancellation request was made within the prescribed period of 15 days. But despite repeated emails and written request sent by the complainant, policy was not cancelled.  At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JN-A’ i.e. terms and conditions of Haryana Civil Services Rules 2006  and under the rule no.2(i) of Contributory Pension scheme, “Upon death, the entire accumulated pension wealth 100%(hundred) would be paid to the nominee/legal heir of the subscriber and there would not be any purchase of annuity/monthly pension”. But opposite parties against these rules have deliberately issued the policy for monthly pension to the complainant and have also failed to cancel the policy despite repeated requests of the complainant made during the free look period. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 in para No.23 of its affidavit has submitted that post filing of this complaint, as an exception case and gesture of goodwill OP company has refunded the complete remaining  amount of Rs.1036546.73/- to the NSDL E Governance Infrastructure on 12.07.2022 as per the PFDRA(Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority) regulations from where the complainant can withdraw the same. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record copy of document Ex.R1/6, as per which the amount has been credited in the account of NSDL E Governance Infrastructure Li. From the documents placed on record by the opposite party No.1 it is proved that the amount has already been credited by the opposite party No.1on 14.07.2022 in the pension fund of the complainant. Hence it was the duty of opposite party no.3 to refund the amount of complainant but the same has not been refunded to the complainant till date.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 are and opposite party no.3 is  liable to pay the accumulated pension to the LRs of deceased Pankaj Malik. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record some other documents ‘Annexure-JN-B’ affidavit of L.Rs of deceased Pankaj Malik and copy of statement of account ‘Annexure-JNC’. As per the complainant she has received an amount of Rs.263169.64/- on 02.08.2021 in the State Bank of India Account No.00000020166337481 against the 20% accumulated amount New Pension Scheme standing to the credit of deceased Sh. Pankaj Malik i.e. husband of complainant, which is also proved from  the statement of account ‘Annexure-JNC’.  Remaining 80% amount i.e. Rs.1056711.37 was utilised to purchase the monthly annuity from ICICI ASP.Out of which opposite party No.1 has paid 4 monthly annuity instalments of Rs.5041/- each i.e. Rs.20164/- to the complainant. Hence the opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay the remaining amount  of Rs.1036547.37/-(Rs.1056711.37 less Rs.20164/-)to the LRs of deceased Pankaj Malik mentioned in ‘Annexure JNB’ i.e. Smt. Sushila Devi wife of deceased, Maanav Malik son of deceased, Naman Malik, daughter of deceased and Nirmala Malik Mother of deceased.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3to pay the amount of Rs.1036547.37/-(Rupees ten lac thirty six thousand five hundred and forty seven and thirty seven paisa only)alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 18.10.2021 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the L.Rs of deceased i.e.Rs.250000/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand only)alongwithinterest toMaanav Malik son of deceased, Rs.250000/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand only)alongwith interestto Naman Malik, daughter of deceased, Rs.250000/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest to Nirmala Malik Mother of deceased and remaining amount  of Rs.286547.37/- (Rupees two lac eighty six thousand five hundred and forty seven and thirty seven paisa only)alongwith interest and Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) on account of compensation and litigation expenses to Smt. Sushila Devi wife of deceased within  one month from the date of decision.  It is made clear that amount disbursed to the minor daughter of deceased namely Naman Malik shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank in the form of FDR till the date of attaining the age of majority and will be paid to her on attaining the age of majority.

9.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

26.03.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member