Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/711/2015

Niraj Thapar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	711 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	10.3.2017

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Niraj Thapar s/o Shri Hari Krishan Thapar r/o H. NO.26, Friend’s Enclave, Chandigarh Highway Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Pb.

 

2.   Anupam Thapar w/o Shri Niraj Thapar r/o H. NO.26, Friend’s Enclave Chandigarh Highway Road, Kharar, District Mohali, PB.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089 Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025.

 

2.   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company PVt. LTd. through its Branch Manager/In charge, SCO 1-2-3, 1^st floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

 

3.   Diwan Housing Finance Ltd. through its Manager/Managing Director/Branch Incharge, SCO 62, 1s floor, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019.

 

4.   Mr. Satish Saini #1089, 1^st floor, Phase-9, Mohali.

 

5.   M/s Optimum House, through its Proprietor/Managing Partner/Managing Director/In charge #1089, 1^st floor, Phase-9, Mohali.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

S.S. Panesar                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For OP NO.1&2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP NO.3	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv.
For OPs No.4&5	:	Exparte.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                In nutshell, the complainants availed housing loan of Rs.12,52,032/- from the OP No.3 after completing all the documentary formalities with monthly installment of Rs.13,146/- having interest @11.25% for a period of 20 years.  It is the allegation of the complainants that OP No.3 only disbursed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-  and did not disburse the remaining amount of Rs.52031/-. The complainant raised the issue with OP No.3 and they assured that the amount would be disbursed shortly.  It is pleaded that to the utter shock of the complainants on 19.5.2011 they received a policy having premium of Rs.52,032/- which was never consented by the complainants. On enquiry from OPs No.1&2 it came to the notice of the complainants that the premium was paid by OP No.3. The complainants immediately approached to OPs No.3,4 and 5 and asked for cancellation of the policy but they refused to do so on the ground that the same is mandatory.  Thereafter the complainant made numerous visits and communications to the OPs for cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount and even approached to the IRDA but nothing fruitful came out.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed the present complaint has been filed seeking various reliefs.  

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

2.      Opposite Parties No.1&2 in their joint reply stated that after receiving duly filled and signed home assure proposal form the policy in question was issued to the complainants. Complainant NO.2 also gave declaration that she was informed about the arrangement between Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and having informed about the details of the master policy document she wishes to avail the said insurance cover.  It is pleaded that if the complainants were not satisfied with the policy in question they could return the policy within 15 days under the free look period provision. But they did not approach during the free look period for cancellation of the policy. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OPs and they as a goodwill gesture are still ready to refund the premium amount  with appropriate interest. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.      OP NO.3 in its reply  while admitting the factum that the complainant availed home loan from it stated that  at the time of availing the home loan the complainants also availed the facility of insurance for the purpose of covering the said loan and as per instruction of the complainants the premium amount was paid to the insurance company for the coverage as provided in the insurance policy. It is further asserted that in case the complainants were not satisfied with the policy in question they should have got the same cancelled within free look period but they did not do so and continued to enjoy  the benefit of the same. It is further asserted that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and the complaint be dismissed. 

 

4.     The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and 3 have been controverted.

 

 

5.     Contesting parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record carefully.

7.     According to the complainant he received the policy on 19.5.2011. The OPs NO.1&2 did not rebut this contention of the complainants by way any cogent evidence.  On perusal of Annexure C-2 it is apparent that on 21.5.2011 the complainant had raised objection with OPs regarding issuance of the policy in question i.e.  within the free look period of 15 days.  In spite of repeated correspondence thereafter by the complainants OPs No.1&2 neither cancelled the policy nor refunded the premium amount. 

8.     Further the OPs No.1&2 in their joint reply in para NO.5 itself stated that “In this regard, the company without getting into  merit of the case and purely as an exception and as a gesture of goodwill decided to cancel the policy and refund the premium to DHFL who will adjust your loan  accordingly. The OP Company is still ready and willing to refund the premium amount with appropriate interest  purely as a matter of good gesture in order settle the matter with the complainants”.  This statement of the OPs No.1&2 itself clearly reveals deficiency and negligence on their part. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of OPs NO.1&2.   

9.     In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted view that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed in the following manner:-

 

i)OPs No.1&2 are directed to refund the single premium amount of Rs.52,032/- alongwith interest at the rate as being charged by OP No.3 on the loan amount from the date of deposit of the single premium within a period of 30 days and deposit the same in the loan account of the complainants with OP No.3.

 

ii)On receipt of the said amount OP No.3 shall adjust the same towards pending loan amount of the complainants.

 

iii) The OPs  No.1&2 NO.1&2shall also pay costs of litigation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.7000/- to the complainants.

 

     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties NO.1&2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[i] shall carry interest @15% per annum from the date of deposit of premium amount, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

10.3.2017                            DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER