Delhi

StateCommission

CC/109/2014

DR. SHIKHA CHHIBBER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Dates of Arguments: 09.03.18 

                                                                    Date of Decision:     14.03.18 

Complaint No.109/2014

In the matter of:

Dr. Shikha Chhibbar

W/o Surinder Chhibber

R/o C-007, Icon Apartments

CHI-3, GH-04,

Greater Noida

UP- 201307.                                                                                                  ….Complainant                                                                    Versus

 

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.

E-1, 3^rd F 1, Videocon Towers

Rani Jhansi Marg, Jandewalan Extension

Delhi-110055.                                                                                         ….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

                                                            JUDGEMENT

            The case of the complainant is that she is bonafide citizen of Singapore and permanent resident of United Kingdom. She was residing in Greater Noida under PIO(person of Indian origin) visa, duly stamped by the Indian High Commission, Singapore. She had come to India to start NGO for carrying out educational business activities and has orphanage for girls in Haridwar.  She purchased policy of Premier Life Pension Plan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from OP in the year  2008. The policy required her to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- for three years. She  subsequently paid small and large amount as and when she had funds to top-up said policy.  She could not repatriate money earned in India to her country as per RBI ruling.  While living in her country she inquired about her policy which has not arrived from Mumbai.    According to IRDA ruling every client should get a free look period. She went to Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi. By that time she had already invested several lakhs of rupees vide cheques or through DD as top-ups into her Rs. Four  lacs Premier Life Policy. She religiously paid her second premium of Rs. 4,00,000/- .  She soon started receiving many sms reminding her to pay her premium.  Every sms had a different amount of money and a different policy number.  She spoke to a person who said Kamla Nagar branch had shut down.  She inquired about the sms and was shocked to learn that she had to start premium as she had 108 policies.  OP had created her top up funds into various independent small and large policies.  She had Rs. 95,00,000/- distributed into 108 new policies.  Their loading charges alone depressed her.

2.        She approached ombudsman immediately and lodged a formal complaint (copy of which is annexure-1).  After negotiation with Mr. Partha Banerjee, Legal Head amount of Rs. 98.5 lacs was paid up with the clause in the agreement as a promise that they will bring the person to justice but they did nothing.  It appeared that it was just a lip service of keeping almost one crore to meet the target. Her mother was suffering from uterus cancer.  She required funds to give her ailing mother a dignified end. Hence this complaint for allowing compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- as interest  accrued over years  until the day cheque of Rs. 98.5 lacs was paid of against hundred over policies, for allowing her policy of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was paid up for two years, allow Rs.10,00,000/- towards financial/business loss, mental and physical harassment suffered by her, allow Rs. 50,000/- towards legal and other expenses and interest @ 18% from 11.12.09 to pendent elite and future interest.

3.        The OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that complaint was time barred. The complaint was for cause of action which allegedly accrued  in 2007-2008, after seven years.  Complaint is not a consumer.  She purchased the policy from OP for commercial purpose.  She purchased about 108 policies for investment purposes. After filing present complaint she filed a complaint before insurance ombudsman on the same allegations.  During the pendency of the said she compromised the matter with the OP and on 01.11.10 MOU was executed whereunder complainant accepted Rs. 98,50,000/- from OP as full and final settlement of her claim arising out of policies standing in her name. OP paid said amount by cheque dated 19.10.10 which was duly encashed by her on 03.11.10. Ombudsman disposed of the complaint on 18.11.10 with the observation that complaint has been redressed to the satisfaction of the complainant. Nothing survived after that. 108 policies were sourced by different advisors working under Mr. Jai Kukreja, Unit Manager.  An e-mail was sent by complainant to Mr. Jai Kukreja in which she mentioned that she had invested large amount as well as similar amount in certain plans of the company.  On merit OP took some the same defence.

4.        Complainant filed rejoinder and her own affidavit in evidence.

5.        Op filed affidavit of Shri Hetal Mehta, Manager Legal in evidence.

6.        Both the parties filed written arguments.

7.        We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Counsel for the OP submitted that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction as the policies were issued from Mumbai Office of the OP.  He further submitted that the policies were purchased in 2008. So complaint filed in 2014 is barred by limitation.  In any event cause of action arose in 2010 atleast when she approached ombudsman and made a complaint.  Even from that period the complaint is barred by limitation.

8.        Third contention of the counsel for OP is that MOU arrived at between the parties put an end to the whole controversy. After having received the amount in full and final settlement the complaint is no more maintainable.

9.        Submissions made by counsel for the OP appears to be well founded.  Counsel for the OP submitted that it is not a case of the complainant that she signed the MOU under duress or coercion or misrepresentation.  Rather she is an educated lady. The object of filing the complaint appears to drag the OP in litigation and thereby compel it to pay more amount.  In this regard reliance may be placed on following decisions:-

1.        (1999) 6 SCC 400 United India Insurance vs. Ajmer Singh.

2.        2008(10) SCC 400 National Insurance Company vs.Setia Shoes.

3.        RP No. 2911/10 titled as Ajay Verma vs. United India Insurance decided by National Commission on 28.04.11.

4.        RP No. 1066/08 titled as Rajeev Tripathi vs. United India Insurance decided by National Commission on 18.09.12.

5.        (2006) 5 SCC 311 Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India.

6.        Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Dr.) vs.National Insurance Company Ltd. II (2013) CPJ 178 NC.

10.      The complainant urged that Ombudsman had no jurisdiction as his jurisdiction was confined to Rs. 20,00,000/- only. The argument has left no impression on our mind.  It was the complainant who approached Ombudsman.  Now she cannot take u-turn and say that Ombudsman had no jurisdiction.  She cannot eat the cake and have too.

11.      In all the above case it was held that once a complainant accepts the amount in full and final settlement, he cannot file the complaint.

12.      As a result of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                           (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)