In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 163/2010
1) The Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair
Business Practices, Govt. of West Bengal,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 6th Floor, Kolkata-87. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI PrulifeTowers.
1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.
2) Manager / Authorised Officer represnting
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
City Mart, 2nd & 3rd Floor, 169, Rashbehari Avenue,
P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 31 Dated 24/01/2013.
Smt. S. Basu, Member.
In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the matter involves an unfair and deceptive trade practice adopted by o.p. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for the purpose of promotion of sales of their insurance products.
Further case of the complainant is that the matter was brought to the knowledge of the State Govt. on 17.9.09 by Mr. S.M. Murshed from 1A, Rainey Park Lane, Kolkata-19. Hence, the cause of action may be considered to have arisen on 17.9.09. Subsequently, another complaint alleging fraudulent opening of policy and adoption of unfair trade practice by o.p. was brought to the notice of the Director, CA & FBP of Govt. of West Bengal on 27.1.10 by Sri Shyamal Mitra from Leningard, Kolkata-700110.
In the first complaint, Mr. S. M. Murshed stated that two persons viz. Mr. Amit Chakraborty and Mr. Kuntal Sarkar representing o.ps. had approached him in Sept.2008, with the proposition that the money paid by his son, Mr. Meher Murshed in Policy No.00560097 since been declined in value would be transferred to a lucrative fund. On being consented by Mr. S.M. Murshed they requested him to issue a cheque of Rs.7 lakhs in favour of the company with the assurance that it would be reimbursed to him in full. Accordingly, Mr. Murshed issued a cheque of Rs.7 lakhs in favour of the company and handed it over to them without being offered to sign any application / proposal from either by him or by his son who was incidentally stationed at Dubai at the time of transaction. The said cheque of Rs.7 lakhs was encashed by the company on 27.10.08. Despite the fact that even after five months. Mr. Murshed did neither receive any receipts against the payment he had made to the company nor any document explaining as to what the company had done with the money he had given to them. After repeated correspondence through e-mails / telephone calls to the customer service cell of the company, Mr. Murshed made it clear through an e-mail dt.16.2.09 that he would prosecute the company u/s 420 of IPC if his grievance for not letting him know the whereabouts of the money he had given to the company is not addressed properly. Thereafter, a policy bearing no.10256226 was delivered sometimes in March, 2009 at his residence by a representative of the company. But the said policy had been found to be issued to one ‘Syed Meher Murshed’ residing in Tamil Nadu at C/o. Kottai Mettu Street, Vill-Gudalore, Taluka-Pilayam, Dist. Theni, Tamil Nadu, Pin-625518, where Mr. Meher Murshed, son of Mr. S.M. Murshed had never belonged to. So, it is evident that the policy in question was issued to a stranger having the same name as the son of Mr. S.M. Murshed.
It was alleged by Mr. Murshed that he had reason to believe that representative of the company Mr. Amit Chakraborty might have filled in the proposal form wherein the signature of his son Mr. Syed Meher Murshed was forged resulting in the issue of the said policy carrying a premium of Rs.7 lakhs p.a. and it was further alleged by Mr. S.M. Murshed that his son’s signature was also forged to withdraw a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the policy no.00560097 of Mr. Meher Murshed which was credited to the account of Mr. S.M. Murshed on 17.10.08.
Further case of the complainant is that Mr. S.M. Murshed wrote to Smt. Isahani Hajra, Manager, Customer Services of the company on 17.3.09 apprising her of the above matter of facts and demanded that his money be not locked up under a policy with a recurring premium but be transferred to one which is more lucrative. After several follow-up calls customer serviced manager admitted to Mr. S.M. Murshed over phone that the policy in question (vide no.10256226) had been issued on the basis of forged documentation. As such, Mr. Murshed is entitled to get return of the sum of Rs.7 lakhs with profit earned on it for the lock-in-period. Consequently, on 17.8.09 the company sent a cheque of Rs.7 lakhs drawn in favour of Mr. Meher Murshed through an employee of the company with a letter to Mr. S.M. Murshed from the Manager, Customer Service stating that it was not the practice of the company to pay profit on policies issued on forged documentation and the questioned policy was cancelled on request. But the fact was otherwise as claimed by Mr. S.M. Murshed. Neither Mr. S.M. Murshed nor his son had ever made request to the company for cancellation of the instant policy which was ab initio void on the ground that it was issued in favour of a stranger. Mr. S.M. Murshed subsequently informed the President of the company on 24.8.09 of the whole mess of things the company had committed and stated that since the company had parked the sum of Rs.7 lakhs for ten months in its coffer, it had no right to pocket the profit earned from it. On 15.9.09 an unsigned letter dt.10.9.09 addressed to Mr. Meher Murshed, son of S.M. Murshed was mailed by the company stating that no interest would be paid on the said sum which was refunded as a goodwill gesture. No explanation as to why the interest / profit for the period of holding of the money at the company’s coffer would not be paid.
And on 17.9.09 Mr. Murshed forwarded a written representation to the Addl. Ch ief Secretary, C.A. Deptt., Govt. of W.B. calling his attention to the aforesaid unlawful activities of o.ps. and urged for his intervention.
Another instance of deceptive practice alleged to be adopted by o.ps. has been brought to the notice of the State Govt. by one, Sri Shyamal Mitra of New Barrackpore, P.O. Chandpore, P.S. Ghola, North 24 Parganas, Leningarh, Kolkata-110 which goes as follows.
1) Sri Shyamal Mitra opened one Unit Linked Insurance Policy with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. at Kakurgachi Branch with initial deposit of Rs.15,000/- by cheque (vide policy no.06614450 dt.5.11.07).
2) The agent of th e company collected a cheque for Rs.15,000/- vide no.597770 dt.8.11.08 on ICICI Bank Ltd. from Mr. Mitra for payment of the 2nd premium of the existing policy in the year 2008.
3) Mr. Mitra alleged that instead of taking appropriate action to acknowledge receipt of payment of Rs.15,000/- for 2nd premium of the existing policy the company had diverted the said sum to open a new policy in the name of Mr. Mitra (vide policy no.10642403 dt.11.12.08) without having any formal proposal being obtained from Mr. Mitra.
4) Mr. Mitra further alleged that the company had played foul with him by deceptively diverting the money to a new policy in his favour instead of funding the 2nd premium of his existing policy.
5) Mr. Mitra had reason to believe that his signature was forged by the concerned agent of the company in the proposal form which was grafted to the documents for the 2nd new policy. He also alleged that his ID proof and address proof in support of the new policy were also not genuine.
6) Mr. Mitra alleged further that his 1st policy with the company was also tampered by replacing his original address with a false address. As a result, he did not receive any postal communication from the company and was kept in the dark about all this unlawful activities of the company until he received one SMS from the company sometimes in November,2009 informing him that Unit Linked Policy No.06614450 was lapsed due to non-payment of premium.
7) Mr. Mitra also alleged that the Branch Manager of the company despite being apprised officially by Mr. Mitra of all such developments since October,2009 no corrective action was taken by the company to redress his grievances. On the contrary, the company had sent back a cheque for Rs.15,000/- only (vide no.419335 dt.15.12.09 on ICICI Bank Ltd.) to Mr. Mitra by acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled the 2nd policy on request although no such request for cancellation of the policy was ever mailed to the company by Mr. Mitra. So, he had reason to believe that such exercise was initiated by the company purposely to cover up their wrong doings and deceptive practices committed in the instant case.
8) The aforesaid matter of facts was brought to the notice of the Govt. on 27.1.10.
The complainant considers its sacrosanct public duty to file the present complainant. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the complaint is a misconceived one and has got no cause of action and needs be rejected.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is very much apparent from the materials on record that one Mr. S.M. Murshed agitated the allegations against the o.ps. before the complainant stating various allegations against the o.ps. caused to the son of Mr. Murshed and further it is seen that one Shyamal Mitra opened one Unit Linked Insurance Policy that o.ps. with initial deposit of Rs.15,000/- by cheque vide policy no.06614450 dt.5.11.07 and the agent of the o.ps. collected the cheque of Rs.1`5,000/- vide no.597770 on 8.11.08 from Mr. Mitra towards payment of second premium of the existing policy in the year 2008 and it is seen from the record that instead of taking appropriate action to acknowledge the receipt of payment of Rs.15,000/- on second premium of the existing policy the company diverted the said sum to open the new policy in the name of Mr. Mitra vide policy no.10642403 dt.11.12.08 without any formal proposal being obtained from Mr. Mitra and it is alleged that o.ps. had played foul play with Mr. Mitra diverting the name of a new policy in favour of Mr. Mitra instead of funding the second premium of his existing policy and Mr. Mitra has got reasonable suspicion that his signature was forged by the concerned agent of the o.ps. in the proposal form which was grafted to the documents for the second new policy and this action on the part of o.ps. is highly unfair. That apart, the case of the son of Mr. Murshed is one of the allegations against the o.ps. but we are not putting much accent on it since Mr. Murshed has filed a specific another case bearing no.CDF Case No.173 of 2010 in a separate proceeding against the unfair trade practice being conducted by o.ps. It is seen from the record that o.ps. are in the habit of practice to open a policy favouring a person to be insured without having obtained any proposal from the insured in prescribed manner prior to its acceptance and the same is not inconformity with the regulatory loss under the Insurance Act. O.ps. had in their w/v and evidence denied all the material allegation s and it is settled principle of law that mere denial is no denial unless rebutted by cogent evidenced.
In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we are constrained to hold that the op.ps. have been running unfair trade practice of promotion of business as defined u/s 2(1)(r) of the C.P. Act and this practice should be nipped in the bud and it is highly detrimental for the society as a whole. We hold that the o.ps. have been running unfair trade practice being service provider to its consumer and complainant has been able to prove its case as avered in the petition of complaint and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case no.163 of 2010 is allowed on contest against both the o.ps. with cost of Rs.50,000/- and o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs) only as punitive damage. The entire aforesaid award has to be paid to the State Consumer Welfare Fund by o.ps. within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
O.ps. are strictly directed not to carry on such type of unfair trade practice henceforth this order may be treated as a caution to o.ps. for the interest of the society as a whole.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
