Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/670/2016

Sewak Singh Sidhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet S. Rakhra

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/670/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2018

Sewak Singh Sidhu, resident of B-203, Society 86, Surya Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.  Now resident at B-608, Chinar Apartments, Peer Machhalla, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali 140603.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 1^st Floor, ICICI Prulife Towers, Opposite TATA Motor Showroom, Near Century Bazar, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman.

2.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, SCO 134-135, First Floor, ICICI Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/671/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2018

 

Sewak Singh Sidhu, resident of B-203, Society 86, Surya Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 1^st Floor, ICICI Prulife Towers, Opposite TATA Motor Showroom, Near Century Bazar, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman.

2.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, SCO 134-135, First Floor, ICICI Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[3]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/672/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2018

Sewak Singh Sidhu, resident of B-203, Society 86, Surya Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 1^st Floor, ICICI Prulife Towers, Opposite TATA Motor Showroom, Near Century Bazar, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman.

2.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, SCO 134-135, First Floor, ICICI Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[4]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/673/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2018

 

Sewak Singh Sidhu, resident of B-203, Society 86, Surya Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.  Now resident at B-608, Chinar Apartments, Peer Machhalla, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali 140603.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 1^st Floor, ICICI Prulife Towers, Opposite TATA Motor Showroom, Near Century Bazar, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman.

2.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, SCO 134-135, First Floor, ICICI Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[5]

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/674/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2018

Sewak Singh Sidhu, resident of B-203, Society 86, Surya Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.  Now resident at B-608, Chinar Apartments, Peer Machhalla, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali 140603.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 1^st Floor, ICICI Prulife Towers, Opposite TATA Motor Showroom, Near Century Bazar, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman.

2.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, SCO 134-135, First Floor, ICICI Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         By this order we propose to dispose of the aforementioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.         The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.670 of 2016 titled as Sewak Singh Sidhu Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance & Anr.
3.         The summarized allegations, as contained in the consumer complaint, are, complainant through the agent of OPs had purchased ICICI Pru LifeStage Pension policy and paid premium of Rs.1,60,000/-.  The policy commencement date was 27.2.2010.  The agent of the OPs had apprised that the yield from this investment would start after completion of three years which would be 50% of the amount invested.  The lock in period was also three years. However, as was apprised, it was contrary to the guidelines and the complainant had come to know, he was victim of unfair trade practice.  Legal notice was issued on 9.9.2015 which was not replied.  As such, there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and prayer is made for refund of the invested amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 
4.         OPs have contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written statement and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complainant not being a consumer; it was a unit linked policy for speculative gain and a speculative investment which does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act being for profit and commercial purposes.  It is the case, premium was payable consecutively for ten years and thereafter income was to be yielded.  It was denied, income was to be yielded after completion of three years. Maintained, Sh. Atul Vij, agent of the OPs was not made a party who had allegedly misled the complainant with regard to the policy. Stated, this Forum cannot add, delete or substitute clauses of the terms and conditions inter se parties.  It is the case, it was LSP Advantage plan; premium payment term was 10 years; coverage term was 10 years; sum proposed/death benefit was zero and premium/contribution was Rs.1,60,000/-. When annual premium was not paid even after 27.2.2011, policy was foreclosed and amount of Rs.25,267.42 was sent to the complainant on 27.2.2013.  As such, policy is no more in force.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the complainant, he was hoodwinked by the agent of the OPs who had apprised him that per terms and conditions, it was a single premium payment policy and lock in period was three years and after the said period, it would start yielding income.  Case of the complainant is, OPs for employment of unfair trade practice had taken the aid of their agent Sh. Atul Wij. However, the said agent was not made as a party by the complainant to substantiate the allegations of fraud or to ascertain the version of the complainant hoodwinked by him. Thus, due to his non-arraying as a party, the claim of the complainant is not substantiated on point of deception.
8.         Per pleadings of the parties, the said policy was despatched to the complainant by the OPs on 5.3.2010 vide AWB No.2861433794 though Express IT and the same was received by him on 9.3.2010. It is the case, there was a free look period in the policy and after reading the contents and terms and conditions of the policy, complainant was to exercise his option with regard to its acceptance or revocation within the time limit of 15 days.  Non exercise of option within the aforesaid prescribed period goes to suggest, its terms and conditions were acceptable to the complainant. 
9.         Now we shall refer to the policy certificate, copy of which is Annexure C-1.  Its perusal shows, policy No.is 13492717; policy term : 10 years; date of commencement : 27.2.2010; vesting date : 27.02.2020; Sum assured : 0.00; premium was Rs.1,60,000/- and periodicity of premium payment was yearly.  These contents itself shows, policy term was explicitly made clear 10 years and the periodicity of premium payment was on yearly basis. There was no misconception regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant happens to be an educated person and a retired Brigadier.  It is not believable, he did not become aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no averment made that the said amount was deposited just to earn livelihood.  Hence, it goes to show, the investment was for commercial purposes and the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer. 
10.         Per record, on non-receipt of annual premium in the year 2013, the policy was foreclosed and the amount of Rs.25,267/- was returned to the complainant as there was a default in payment of the annual premium.  We shall take note here, even after receipt of the foreclosure amount, complainant kept mum for more than two years and then in one fine morning of 19.8.2016 preferred the present consumer complaint on the ground of employment of unfair trade practice and cheating at the hands of agent of the OPs.  It is not the case, complainant on receipt of the cheque amount of the foreclosure money i.e. Rs.25,267/- did not accept it or accepted it under protest. It is also not his case, immediately on receipt of the foreclosure amount, in the year 2013, he had agitated the matter with the OPs. These are not his assertions at all nor any document to this effect has seen the light of the day. 
11.         From the aforesaid record, the inescapable conclusions are, the policy was supplied to the complainant in the year 2010 and the complainant was aware of its terms and conditions and in case there was unfair trade practice, as per his claim, he could have filed the consumer complaint within two years from the date of receipt of the policy i.e. to say before 2012, but, no such assertion has been made by the complainant.
12.         It is the case, complainant was cheated by the agent of the OPs.  OPs have denied this and these acts were not within the scope of the authority delegated to the agent of the OPs.  As such, it does not bind the master.
13.         OPs had relied on case titled as Ram Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., III (2013) CPJ 203 (NC), wherein it was held that the investment made by the complainant was to gain profit.  Hence, it was investment for commercial purposes and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the OPs.
14.         OPs had also relied on case titled as Sitaram Vs. Santanu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1697 wherein it was held, master is vicariously liable for the acts of the servant acting in the course of employment.  For the master’s liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act done through a mode authorised by the master.
15.         In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by us, we cannot add or change the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, we hold the complainant has failed to establish that he was a victim of unfair trade practice or the OPs were deficient in rendering proper services.  Hence, the present consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
16.         Similarly, the other consumer complaints, referred to above, are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
17.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/10/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President