DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.                 Onkar Singh

2.                 Paramjit Kaur w/o Onkar Singh

Both residents of House No.57, Village Naggal, Tehsil Kharar, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Mart, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025, through its General Manager.

2.                 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Near Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh through its Incharge/Manager

3.                 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Near Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, Chandigarh through its authorised agent Sh. Ashish Kumar.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Ms. Anupam, Adv. for the complainants

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Onkar Singh and  another have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite parties :-

(i)                To pay claim of Rs.1,00,000/- on each of the two policies alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of payment till realization.

(ii)             To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony

(iii)           To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that one Ashish Kumar, authorised agent of opposite parties No.1 & 2 approached the complainants and advised them to purchase Life Time Gold Policies from opposite parties No.1 & 2.  He represented that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainants are required to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as initial deposit and Rs.30,000/- each for next two years on both the policies. The complainants were told that after five years they would get Rs.6,00,000/- on each policy. 

                   Believing the representation to be true, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to said Ashish Kumar  who issued receipts (C-1 and C-1/A).  After 8 months the complainants received the policies (C-2 and C-2/A) which were dated 2.9.2008(sic. 3.9.2008). It has further been pleaded that the complainants received a letter dated 2.3.2010 (C-3) from opposite parties No.1 & 2 whereby they demanded further premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on each policy, and the complainants were told that Ashish Kumar is no more their agent.  It has further been pleaded by the complainants that as they were not in a position to pay premium @ Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, so they approached the opposite parties for refund of the amount paid by them but the opposite parties refused to pay the same on the pretext that now they cannot change the terms and conditions of the policy as the ‘free look period’ has expired. 

                   The case of the complainants is that despite several requests the opposite parties have failed to refund the amount given by them. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants at the admission stage and have also gone through the documents on record.

4.                           It is admitted case of the complainants that they paid the first premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 1.9.2008 and no more premium was paid thereafter. It is also the case of the complainants that the policies were received by them after 8 months of the deposit of the amount i.e. near about the month of May 2009.  On receipt of the policies the complainants had come to know that the terms and conditions of the policies are not the same which were represented to them by Sh. Ashish Kumar.  So, they had opportunity to ask for the refund of the amount within 15 days time i.e. within the ‘free look period’.  However, the complainants failed to do so. 

5.                           So the cause of action accrued to the complainants for the first time in the month of May 2009 and the present complaint was filed on 1.10.2012 i.e. well after the period of two years as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Act.

6.                           Faced with this situation, the ld. Counsel referred to Annexure C-4 submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties.  In this letter the complainant showed his helplessness to pay the premium of Rs. One lakh each year and prayed that the policy should be surrendered. However, we are of the view that even this letter (C-4) is of no help to the complainants.  Annexure C-4 is dated 7.5.2010 whereas, as stated above, the present complaint was filed on 1.10.2012.

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is barred by limitation and, as such, the same is dismissed in limine. 

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.10.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER