Mrinmoy Dutta,

1 / 4,, Deshpran Sasmal Road,

P.S. Bantra,  District –Howrah,

PIN – 711101.----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,

            Howrah Branch, P-4, Dobson Lane ( 1^st floor ),

            Howrah – 711101.

2.         Indian Infoline Finance Ltd.,

            1, Shakespeare Sarani, 7^th floor,

            Kolkata – 700071.--------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant . Mrinmoy Dutta, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps.  to pay an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- as compensation for causing severe mental agony  along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant being one seriously sick person, was

convinced by the O.P. no. 2 to  invest in O.P. no.1’s unit linked insurance policy. Being verbally assured by both the O.Ps. with respect to any time withdrawal of money, complainant paid the first premium of Rs. 25,000/- through cheque on 14-05-2007 which was collected by one bearer of the O.Ps. from complainant’s residence. O.Ps. told the complainant that he has to pay the annual premium of Rs. 25,000/- for three years only but after the first policy year, complainant can  withdraw required amount for urgent necessity like medical treatment etc.  And sum insured is Rs. 2,50,000/-. As the complainant was passing through severe illness, considering the future of his wife and child, complainant paid the 1^st premium. Immediately after that he required money for his treatment and visited O.P. no.2 ‘s office with the request of refund of money. At that time, O.P. no. 2 told him that unless and until he pays premium for at least three years, complainant would not get any refund. As complainant was having Asthama and sleep-disorder-problem, he never went through the policy documents because he could not concentrate on words. So, he could not know that within 15 days’ of receipt of policy document, he could have cancelled the policy issued to him. And under such compulsion, he had to pay the second premium of Rs. 25,000/- on 03-06-2008 accumulating all he had in post office and bank as savings. So, he could not undergo proper treatment for financial crisis. Again he visited O.Ps.’ office for refund of money. But he was again compelled to pay the third premium of  Rs. 25,000/- on 10-06-2009 out of fear that otherwise he would loose the entire amount of Rs. 75,000/-.  After this payment of third premium, complainant visited O.P. no. 1’s office for refund of money and he was told that he would get only  Rs. 45,000/- until completion of ten years, though he paid Rs. 75,000/-.  Thereafter, complainant lodged two complaints through internet against O.P. no. 1 to IRDA on 11-06-2012 and 16-06-2012. But he did not get any result. Even he filed complaints with grievance redressal officer of O.P no. 1 vide Annexure ‘A’ as well as with C .A. and F.B.P. Department. But the problem was not solved. Ultimately, being aggrieved and finding no other alternative Complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.P. no. 2 in their

written version has taken a specific plea that they are the authorized agent of O.P. no. 1 in respect of promoting the business of O.P. no. 1 and there was no monetary transaction between O.P. no. 2 and the complainant. O.P. no. 2 took an appointment from the complainant to discuss over various policies of different companies and even ‘’Free look period’ was also discussed with him. And at that time, it was not within their knowledge that complainant was seriously sick. And as he did not avail the opportunity to cancel the policy during ‘Free look period’, he had waived his right to cancel the policy in due course and for that only he paid three premiums from 2007-2009. So the filing of this petition  by the complainant is absolutely time-barred and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. And the same plea has been taken by O.P. no. 1, too. According to O.P. no. 1, policy was issued to the complainant in 2007 and the complaint has been filed in the year of 2013. It is also stated by O.P. no. 1 that by paying three premiums, complainant has been enjoying the insurance coverage since 2007 and insurance policy is a contract entered into by the policy holder and insurance company and terms and condition of the policy have to be followed by the parties. As the policy is a unit-linked one and it has acquired a surrender value after payment of three premiums, complainant is entitled to Rs. 45,000/- only.  And complainant never raised any objection regarding this policy when he filed an application  in the year of 2009 for change of his date of birth being Annexure ‘C’. And there was  a regular interaction with the complainant through E-mail but he never asked for the refund of money vide Annexure ‘D’. Complainant only on 27-05-2009 wrote a letter to O.P. no. 1 for refund of money and O.P. no. 1 vide their letter dated 30-05-2009 declined to refund the same on the ground that as the complainant did not avail of ‘Free look period’, the policy could not be cancelled vide  Annexure ‘E’ collectively. But again on 16-06-2012 O.P. no. 1 sent one e-mail to the complainant asking for the medical reports of the complainant since he had a talk over telephone on 15-06-2012 regarding complete refund of money with O.P. no. 1, which he required for his medical treatment. But complainant did not submit the same but wrote a letter to IRDA on 08-08-2012 and finally filed this instant case on 22-05-2013. It is also highlighted by the O.P. no. 1 that once complainant is alleging that O.P. nos. 1 & 2 made all misrepresentation about the policy and he was convinced to buy the policy and on the other hand complainant is demanding the refund of entire premium amount of  Rs. 75,000/- due to his financial crisis and medical contingencies.

6.                  We have carefully gone through the written versions of both O.Ps. and  all the

Annexures. We have also found that once complainant is admitting that O.Ps. told him to pay premium at least for three years in Annexure ‘\F’, i.e., letter dated 08-08-2012 and again in Annexure ‘E’, complainant has admitted that O.Ps. told him to pay premium for five years. Complainant has not annexed any medical documents in support of his serious illness. But it is also our common knowledge and experience that now-a-days insurance companies are making all false commitments quite off and on to increase their volume of sale. The agents, here, O.P. no. 2, are making all mis-representation regarding financial viability of a policy to allure and attract the people. The people are buying unit-linked policies with a great hope of making huge monetary gain out of a policy, which could not be made possible by the insurance companies. So, the consumer disputes are arising by leaps and bounds. Being an insurer and insurance agent, both the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 were required to be little more transparent. We all get policy documents but how many of us actually go through that policy document ? The policy in question is named as ‘Invest shield cash back’ under which the facility of cash back was assured by O.P. no. 1. And in proposal form dated 10-05-2007 under the column ‘Purpose of Insurance’. Complainant has written ‘Liquidity + Tax saving’, So, it is quite understood that to get money, at any point of time, was one of his motto. And when O.P. no. 2 gave a verbal assurance that he could withdraw money along with interest even after the first policy year, he became interested to purchase the said policy. But at the same time, an educated person is expected to be little more careful, whatever assurance is given, one has to think over it and come to a reasonable conclusion before buying any market-related policy. As he is a businessman, dealing in electronics goods for last 15 years ( as per point no. 13 of the proposal form ), he is expected to have knowledge about unit-linked policy. Now, the product which the complainant had purchased is not performing well, so the complainant is at a loss. It was also within his knowledge that the product was having a 20 year  term. And it is also true that some funds perform well in the long run.  But due to financial crisis complainant wanted to get back his amount. And it is also true that O.Ps. adopted some kind of unfair trade practice by way of portraying an over exexarated figure of the return under the policy in question which should also be stopped. Accordingly, we allow the petition of complaint partly against O.Ps. without any compensation.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  170 of 2013 ( HDF 170  of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant along with a payment of litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-  within 30 days from the date of this order, i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 80,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

            Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.