DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE  NO. 64/2022

           Date of Filing:                         Date of Admission:                               Date of Disposal:                

          28.03.2018                                09.04.2018                                            23.03.2023

P R E S E N T               :-        Smt. Sukla Sengupta………………..President

  :-        Sri Abhijit Basu……………………….Member

JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER

            The complainant filed this application under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 submitted interalia that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are running their business outside the jurisdiction of this commission. Hence he seeking permission under Section 34 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

            The fact of the case in brief is that to Life Insurance Policies of IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd (presently Agas) Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd) as Insurance Company were processed through their agent IDBI Bank Ltd on their Sodepur Branch, Policy No. are as follows- 4001125224 and 400112525173, commencement date for both policies are 15^th November, 2017 principal amount of Rs. 75,000/- each i.e. in total Rs. 1,50,000/- as first premium instalment which was paid on 23.10.2017 for each policy as mentioned above to the Insurance Company through its proposer or agent i.e. the complainant namely Sudip Chanda and payment was made through IDBI Savings Bank A/c. 114814000137935. It is further stated that on November, 2017 the policy bonds were received vide Nos. 4001125224 and 4001125173 by the present complainant where the name and date of birth of the nominee were observed totally different from the actual credential gain to the bank. It is alleged by the complainant that the policy bond mentioned the name and date of birth of the nominee as Anjana Chanda date of birth 01.01.1965 in place of Sumita Chanda date of birth 21.05.1966 and the name of the mother of the proposer has been mentioned in the first name -A       Middle name …….. Last name CHANDA in place of KALPANA RANI CHANDA as mentioned in Annexure –A2. It is further mentioned of the complainant that the name and date of birth of the nominee in the above policy bonds were completely different from the actual as per their PAN Card that the opposite party members failed to produce any document on the basis of which above incorrect entries were made in the policy bonds. The incorrect entries were made about the date of birth of the nominees in the policy bond as mentioned (Annexure-A8). Then the complainant sent hand written letter for cancellation of one of the above policies to the Sodepur Branch or in the month of November, 2017 who has received the said letter was given to the proposer. The Insurance Co. vide letter dated 22.12.2017, did not agree cancellation of the policy where they had confirmed that the policy bond was delivered to the proposer on 21.11.2017. Subsequently vide letter dated 06.12.2018 against RTI letter of the proposer dated 31.10.2018, the Insurance Co. had confirmed that the date of the proposer’s above letter for cancellation of one policy was 21.11.2017 but it was received by them on 20..12.2017. It is further stated that on 16.07.2018 the complainant again sent hand written letter addressed to the Insurance Company through Sodepur Branch IDBI Bank for correction of the name and date of birth of the nominee as well as name of mother of the proposer for both the policies.

Contd/-2

C. C.  CASE  NO. 64/2022

:: 2 ::

The corrections were confirmed by the Insurance Co. through simple letters in phases on different dates which created doubt in the mind of the complainant whether the corrections were made in the policies in the computerized system or not. Then a letter dated 24.09.2018, was submitted to Kolkata office of the Insurance for cancellation of both the policies has incorrect named and date of birth of nominees in the original policy bond and the way they confirmed its correction was not acceptable of the proposal to the complainant but the policies were not cancelled and premium instalement paid was not returned to the complainant. Annexed at A5 (a) and (b).

The complainant further stated that on 31.08.2018 he also sent a letter to the bank, Sodepur Branch for the same purpose. The bank had confirmed, vide their letter No. RBG/RTI/250/3766/2018 dated 05.12.2018 stating interalia that their Sodepur Branch had sent the policy proposal form with nominee details to the Insurance Company. They also informed in the said letter that the policy document provided by IDBI Federal. Life Insurance Co. also contained the copy of the proposal form.

            It is further stated that by the complainant that the matter informed to the office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Hindustan Building, C.R, Avenue, Kolkata- 700072 but the Ombudsman confirmed that the complainant was not comment their purview. Subsequently on 06.05.2019 the complainant submitted the complaint to the Central Consumer Grievances Redressal Cell, Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata-700087 wherefrom he was instructed to file a statutory complaint case before the DCDRC, Barasat. Hence the instant petition of complaint is filed before the DCDRC, Barasat with a prayer to look into the above matter and to give direction to the opposite parties for making payment of total Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- is the amount paid at first instalment for the above mentioned to Insurance policies and Rs. 50,000/- is the accrued interest thereon and the other Rs. 50,000/- is litigation cost.

            The O.P. No.1 has contested the case by filing written version denying all the materials allegations level against it in the petition of complaint. It is the case of the contesting O.P that the petition of complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is further stated by the O.P that there is / was no cause of action of the complainant to file this case  and thus the same is liable to be dismissed.

            It is also stated by the contesting O.P that this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. It is the case of the O.P that the present complaint in respect of claim under unit link Insurance Policy sent maintainable before this commission.

            It is further stated by the O.P that the contesting inform the complainant clearly by the letter forwarding the policy to the policy holder that he has a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document and period of 30 days in case of electronic policies and policies obtained through distance more to refund the terms and conditions of the policy and where the policy disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has been operate to return the policy to the insurer for cancellation after arising the reason and objections.

            It is further stated by the O.P. No.1 that the policy Nos. 4001125224 and 4001125173 were dispatching by the company on 18.11.2017 which is duly delivered by the complainant on 24.11.2017, the policy holder chose to retain the policy without any objection with regard to the said teerms and conditions of the policy within the free look period. Thus present petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is now stopped from now expecting the terms and conditions to which he agreed earlier.

            It  is further stated by the O.P that the complainant paid only one premium and the next premium amount was due on 2018 but the complainant did not pay the same. As per policy conditions the complainant was given a grace period of 30 days to pay due premium amount, but he paid to deposit the premium within the grace period also and he never approached the O.P. No.1 for re-estimation of the policy in question within two years. Hence the policy in

Contd/-3

C. C.  CASE  NO. 64/2022

:: 3 ::

question entered ‘cover discontinued stage’. However, after the expiry initial lock in of 5 years (which his going to expire in November, 2022 and the discontinued fund as available on his policies as on the date of payment as per clause 6 of his policy document.

            It is also the O.Ps case that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the contesting O.P.

            It is further stated by the contested O.P that the complainant did not entitle to any relief and compensation as prayed for. Thus the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            In view of the above stated pleadings the points of consideration will be as follows:-

Point for consideration

            1.Is the case is maintainable in its present form and law?

            2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

            3.Is the complainant a consumer?

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

            5. Is the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

Decision with Reasons

            All the points for considerations are taken together for convenience and discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

            On a close perusal of the materials on record and also considering the facts and circumstances it is palpably clear that this commission has got both the jurisdiction i.e. territorial and pecuniary to try this case. It is also proved from the facts and circumstances as well as the material on record that the complainant has sufficient cause of action to file this case and case has been filed well within the period of limitation.

            Admittedly the complainant purchased the policies bearing No. 4001125173 and 4001125224 in the name of Mr. Sudip Chanda of Rs. 75,000/- each towards principal amount from the O.P.No.1 through the O.P. No.2- Bank.

            It is further revealed from the facts and circumstances of this case that the aforesaid two policies were purchased by the complainant of IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd (presently) Ageas Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd and were purchased through their agent IDBI Bank Ltd, Sodepur Branch, both the policies were dated 15.11.2017 amounting to total Rs. 1,50,000/-( Rs. 75,000/- for each as first premium instalment and that was paid on 23.10.2017 to the Insurance Company by the proposer/ complainant on 23.10.2017 and the payment was made through IDBI Savings Bank A/c. No. 1148104220137935 reference copy of pass book page A/1, a2  (a-b). From the evidence on record it is revealed that in the month of November, 2007 when the complainant received the policy bond vide Nos. 4001125224 and 4001125173 it is found that the name and date of birth of the nominee were totally different from the actual credentials given to the bank in the said policy the name of the nominee has been mentioned as Anjana Chanda and date of birth 01.01 1965 in place of Sumita Chanda, date of birth 21.05.1966. The Insurance Company also wrongly mentioned the name of the mother of the policy holder. The first name of the mother has been mentioned as first name ‘A’ Middle name ………Last name Chanda in place of Kalpana Rani Chanda as Annexure A2.

            From the materials as well as evidence on record it is revealed that the O.P- Insurance Company was requested by the complainant on several occasions in writing either to correct the name and date of birth of the nominee in the policies in question or to cancel the policies and to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in total to the complainant. But the opposite party- Insurance Company did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Even the O.P – Insurance Company did not inform the complainant whether they have corrected the incorrect

name, date of birth of the nominee and the incorrect name of the mother of the policy holder. Neither the O.P- Insurance Company nor the bank had ever supplied the copy of the proposers declaration of the nominee details through the complainant/ proposer and they failed to establish before the Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell about the cause of recording

Contd/-4

C. C.  CASE  NO. 64/2022

:: 4 ::

the incorrect name and date of birth of the nominee as printed in the policy bond in question and also incorrect name of the mother of the policy holder. The cause of delay to file the case before this Consumer Commission for pandemic situation in the year 2020-2021 is justified and delay is condoned.

            On the basis of discussion made above it is held by the commission that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties and the opposite parties are the service provider.

            It is also crystal clear from the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence on record and also from the discussion made above that the opposite parties intentionally caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant as even on repeated requests made by the complainant the O.P-Insurance Company did not take any step to correct the incorrect name and date of birth of the nominee as they mentioned in the policy bond and also did not correct the name of the mother of the complainant therein. They have received the premium amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. Rs. 75,000/- each for both the policies in question.

            On the basis of the evidence on record of both sides it is evident that the O.P-Insurance Company though received the premium i.e. first instalment of Rs.75,000/- for each bond in total of Rs. 1,50,000/- but did not try to remove the defects made by the agent of the Insurance Company for incorrect recording of the name and date of birth of the nominee in both the policies bond and also the incorrect name of the mother of the policy holder. The complainant drew the attention of the opposite parties on several occasions in writing to remove the defects of the policy bond but the opposite parties avoided him and did not take any fruitful steps which should be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for which they should be liable to give compensation to the complainant for harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant.

            On the basis of discussion made above this commission has no hesitation to hold the view that the complainant being a consumer could be able to prove this case beyond of reasonable ground against the service provider – opposite parties and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

            The case is properly stamped.

            All the points are thus considered and decided favourably to the complainant.

            Hence,

                        Ordered,

            that the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite parties with cost.

            The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.

            There is no claim against O.P. No.2.

            Thus,The O.P.No.1 is directed to refund the premium of Rs. 1,50,000/- in total to the complainant for both the policies as mentioned above along with interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire amount from the date of filing of this case till realization within 45 days from the date of this order.

            The O.P.. No.1 – IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

            If the O.P. No.1 failed to comply the decree within the stipulated period the complainant would be at liberty to execute the same through court.

           Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

President

                                                                        Member                                 President