Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 484.
Instituted on : 21.08.2017.
Decided on : 21.01.2019.
Ranbir Singh Dahiya, aged 77 years, son of Sh. Khem Chand Dahiya, R/o 258-F, Vidya Niketan Road, Model Town, Rohtak, Mobile No. 8813888036.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance office at 1st Floor, Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak through its Head Office Incharge.
2. Ms. Nupur Makkar authorized Advisor ICICI Prudential Mutual Funds Code/License No. 01224361, Office at Unit No. 31, Ground Floor, Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Munjal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. V.P. Dua, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to invest money in ICICI Prudential Mutual Funds and for that the agent of OP No. 1 i.e. OP No. 2 contacted the complainant and on her assurance the complainant invested Rs.2,00,000/- in March, 2016 with the OP No. 1. OP No. 2 had told the complainant that this is a one time investment. That during the period of one year, complainant asked the OP No. 1 many times about the policy and documents regarding his investment of Rs.2,00,000/- but the OP No. 2 did not provide any detail or document regarding the investment of the complaint. After one year, complainant received one policy bearing No.19926054 date of commencement 29.03.2016 of Rs.2,00,000/-. That after going through the policy the complainant came to know that the premium of the policy has to be paid yearly and its date of maturity is after twenty years. Complainant contacted the OP No. 1 and 2 regarding the cancellation of policy as he is 77 years old and is unable to pay the annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- for the next twenty years. It is further alleged that the application regarding this was duly received by OP No.1 in the month of June, 2017 and OP No.1 has assured to refund the amount to the complainant alongwith interest and regret for their fault. But till today the complainant has not received any refund amount from the OPs. That the act of opposite parties of not refunding the alleged amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the alleged amount Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that on the basis of the proposal form and customer declaration form, the subject policy was issued to the complainant. The premiums under the subject policy was to be paid for 10 years annually however the complainant herein only paid the first year premium. It is also submitted that the complainant had himself opted for Yearly/Annual premium which clearly indicated in the proposal form. It is further submitted that the policy was dispatched vide Blue Dart AWB No. 4353773741 on 01.04.2016 and the same was duly received by the complainant on 05.04.2016. It is denied that the complainant approached the OP company with any cancellation request during the free-look period. It is pertinent to mention that it was only on 25.04.2017 i.e. after a period of more than one year the complainant submitted a grievance complaint and the same was duly replied vide letter dated 02.05.2017. It is further submitted that the policy holder had not approached the OPs during the free look period with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions meaning thereby that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. Opposite party prayed for dismissal the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its written reply has submitted that the OP never told the complainant that investment of Rs.2,00,000/- was one time investment. The company based on the information provided in the application form duly filled and signed by the complainant had issued the policy to the complainant. As such OP has nothing to do with it except introduction of the complainant to the company on the asking of complainant. It is further submitted that OP is to get only the commission which is paid by the company and not by the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP as such under the law. No damage or penalty can be imposed on the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No. 2.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.03.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.10.2018. Whereas, OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on dated 10.08.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the complainant, he approached the respondent no.2 i.e. agent of opposite party No.1 regarding one time investment. He handed over an amount of Rs.200000/- to the respondent no.2 for the one time investment. The amount was invested and complainant demanded detail regarding the investment and also demanded the relevant documents but the same were not provided to the complainant either by the respondent no.1 or by respondent no.2. After one year when the complainant received the policy, at that time, he came to know that the amount was invested in a long term policy for 20 years and the premium was to be paid for 10 years and he immediately approached to the opposite parties to surrender the policy but the opposite parties have not refunded the alleged amount to the complainant. It is also observed that the complainant was 77 years old in 2016 and it cannot be believed that he will pay such a huge amount of premium for the next 10 years. At the age of 77 years, it is possible for the grandparents to deposit the amount for their grand children for one time only but it is too hard to deposit such a huge premium for the next 10 years. Hence it is proved that the policy was sold by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant on misrepresentation of facts/false grounds. On the other hand, as per the opposite party no.1, the policy in question was dispatched vide Blue Dart AWB No. 4353773741 on 01.04.2016 and the same was duly received by the complainant on 05.04.2016. As the complainant approached the OP company after the free-look period, hence his request was cancelled. In this regard it is observed that opposite party no.1 has not placed on record any document e.g. postal receipt/courier receipt or any other document to prove that the alleged policy was dispatched on 01.04.2016 and the complainant had received the same on 05.04.2016. As such the opposite parties cannot take the benefit of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and are liable to refund the amount deposited amount.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the alleged amount of Rs.200000/-(Rupees two lacs only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.21.08.2017 till its realization to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
