Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/284/2013

Hem Raj Bains - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Alka Sarin, Gautam Mittal, Adv.

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	284 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	08.07.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	05.02.2015

 

 

 

 

Hem Raj Bains s/o Sh.Gian Singh Bains, House No.48, Sector 4, Chandigarh 

 

             Complainant

Versus

 

1]  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025 through its General Manager.

 

2]  Ms.Jyotsna C/o ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.14-15, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160 017

 

 

  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA     PRESIDING MEMBER

SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU  MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Ms.Alka Sarin, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party-1.

Sh.Puneet Tuli, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2

 

 

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

1]      The complainant was already a customer of the Opposite Party No.1 since 2008 when he was approached by Opposite Party No.2 for investment in another insurance cashback policy.  The complainant was given to understand that he would have to pay a premium of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 3 years only. The complainant accordingly issue cheque on 16.7.2012 for Rs.50,000/- for issuance of new Guaranteed Savings Insurance Plan Policy.  The policy document was alleged to have been dispatched to the communication address of the complainant on 19.7.2012 while the policy was allegedly issued on 16.7.2012.  The complainant has stated that as per Opposite Party No.1, the policy had a 15 days free look period option from the date of receipt of the policy in case the customer was not satisfied with its terms & conditions.  However, the policy document in fact was never received by the complainant at all.  The complainant thus made a complaint with the OPs on 4.9.2012. It is stated that the complainant came to know only when he made a complaint with the Opposite Party No.1 on 4.9.2012 that the policy documents have been dispatched to him on 19.7.2012. Complaints in this regard were made with the Opposite Party No.1 on 10.10.2012, 16.10.2012 and on 14.2.2013 (Ann.A to Ann.C). The complainant also requested the Opposite Party No.1 to provide him the details of the delivery of the policy to him.  The Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 19.2.2013 informed the complainant that the receipt could not be retrieved. The complainant also lodged complaint with IRDA on 26.2.2013 alleging unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 (Ann.E).  It is alleged that the policy documents still have not been received by the complainant due to which he could not neither cancel nor revoke the said policy.  The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with a prayer for refund of Rs.50,000/- along with compensation and cost of litigation.

 

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3]      The Opposite Party No.1 in reply, besides taking some frivolous objections about the maintainability of the complaint, has stated that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service of the answering Opposite Party.  In fact the complainant has failed to pay regular premiums and contract of the policy has to be strictly construed for maintenance of the contract.  The complainant has not been able to show any deficiency or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  In fact, the complainant has failed to pay renewal premiums on due dates and thus has not been able to keep the policy alive due to his own negligence. Also the answering Opposite Party would be liable to return the premium paid after deductions only in case the request for cancellation was received within free look period, but the complainant has never approached the answering Opposite Party with such request.  In fact the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on 19.7.2012 through Blue Dart Courier and were duly received by the complainant on 21.7.2012.  The delivery proof is Ann.R-2 All other allegations of the complainant have been stated to be wrong and hence denied.  A prayer has been made that the complaint be dismissed. 

         The Opposite Party No.2 in her reply stated that the complainant has not claimed any relief against answering Opposite Party.  The relief claimed only pertains to the policy taken from Opposite Party No.1.  The answering Opposite Party has only aided the complainant to avail a policy from Opposite Party No.1.  As the answering Opposite Party has not received any amount from the complainant, she is not responsible for refund of the money to him. Denying other allegations, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed that the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 be dismissed.

 

4]      The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP No.1 thereby controverting the submission of OP No.1 as made in the reply and reiterated the assertions as made in the complaint.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

 

7]       As the complainant was already a customer with the Opposite Party No.1 holding two insurance policies, he chose to apply for a third insurance policy on the advise of Opposite Party No.2. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid for the policy.  However, the policy documents were never received or delivered to the complainant due to which he could not know about its contents and hence could not exercise his option of free look period seeking cancellation of the policy.  Despite the fact that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 several times for the policy document, no copy of the policy was every supplied to him.  In fact he was informed that the policy documents had been delivered to him by courier.  However, no proof of delivery was ever provided to the complainant.  The complainant thus made a request to the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount paid by him towards the said policy.

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.1 in reply has contended that the policy was dispatched to the complainant. However, the proof of delivery, placed on record by Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure R-2, to our mind is not conclusive as it is a certified issued by Courier Company that the policy has been delivered.  In this document, against the Column “Received by”, it is written as “Stamp”. 

         What does “Stamp” mean here?  It definitely throws benefit of doubt in favour of the consumer, who has stated that he has not received the policy.

 

9]       We must keep in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the consumer, and benefit of doubt needs to be given to the unsuspecting consumer faced with expert brokers who may easily mislead. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1) CLT 1 (SC), had held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. Further, in case Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(1) CLT 303 (Pb.), it has also been held that if two view are possible, the one which helps the consumer should be taken.

 

10]      As the Opposite Party No.1 has not been able to adequately prove the delivery of the policy documents to the complainant and has also not made any efforts to provide him an alternative copy of the policy, so that he could exercise his option of free look period, we deem it appropriate to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount paid by the complainant for the policy allegedly issued to the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, as received by it.  The Opposite Party No.1 will also pay Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation.

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt, failing which it shall be liable to refund the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization, apart from paying litigation cost.

 

11]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed as no relief is due.

         Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of cost. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

5^th February, 2015

                                               

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                                                  MEMBER

 

Om                                                                                          

 

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.284 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 5th day of February, 2015

O R D E R             Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2.           After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)		(Madhu Mutneja)
Member		Presiding Member