BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.441 of 2015

                                              Date of institution:          02.09.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            26.04.2016

Narpat Rai Gupta son of Mangat Rai, resident of H.No.3270, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

                                         ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Sr. Divisional Manager, Jeevan Parkash Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Branch Manager, SCO No.46-47, Sector 54, Near Bassi Theater, Phase-II, Mohali, Punjab.

3.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Shri K.K. Gilhotra, Development Officer, SCO No.46-47, Sector 54, Near Bassi Theater, Phase-II, Mohali, Punjab.

4.     Taranjit Kaur, Agent LIC R/o H.No.HL 117, Phase-II, Mohali.

                                                             ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri N.S. Jagdeva, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for OP No.1 to 3.

OP No.4 in person.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony.

(b)    pay him Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages.

(c)    pay him Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 

                The case of the complainant is that in the month of   December, 2013 he purchased Jeevan Anand policy from the OPs and cheque for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards premium of the policy  was collected by the agent from the complainant on 02.12.2013.  The cheque was encashed on 10.12.2013. However, the complainant did not receive any policy.  In reply to the complaint made to the Manager CRM LIC, Sector 17, Chandigarh, the complainant was asked to supply specific information as to which branch of LIC has credited the cheque of the complainant. The complainant submitted the requisite details vide letter dated 25.02.2014. Policy No.165535344 was issued to the complainant on 26.02.2014 and a cheque of Rs.583/- dated 28.07.2013 of excess premium collected by the agent was also issued to the complainant.  On perusal of the policy, the complainant noticed following discrepancies in the policy:

(a)    the name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned as Narpal Rai Gupta instead of Narpat Rai Gupta.

(b)    the date of commencement of risk was mentioned as 28.07.2013 whereas the policy was issued on 26.02.2014.

(c)    the date of birth of the complainant was mentioned as 02.02.1966 instead of 02.02.1950.

                Even the cheque of refund of excess premium was made on the name of Narpal Rai. The policy was issued by the Mohali office whereas he had never approached the Mohali office.  At this, the complainant requested the OP vide letter dated 03.03.2014 that he is not interested to have the policy and sought refund of Rs.30,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- on account of expenditure and mental harassment.  The complainant also made a complaint on 05.03.2014 to the Insurance Ombudsman, Sector 17 Chandigarh regarding his grievances. After this complaint, the OPs vide letter dated 10.03.2014 asked the complainant to supply the original policy alongwith premium receipt. The complainant vide his letter dated 18.03.2014 followed by another letter dated 26.07.2014 requested the OPs to collect the documents from his residence the complainant being handicapped.  Due to non action on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed a complaint to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 04.08.2014 through e-mail as well as by registered post.  Thereafter, the OPs vide letter dated 21.08.2014 sent through OP No.3 to the complainant a cheque dated 21.08.2014 for Rs.30,000/-. The complaint of the complainant made to Insurance Ombudsman has been decided vide order dated 10.02.2015. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             OP Nos.1 to 3 in the preliminary objections of their written statement have pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant has been granted relief in the complaint filed by him before the Insurance Ombudsman and the present complaint on the same cause of action cannot be adjudicated by this Forum. The contents of the complaint are required to be proved through evidence and cross examination of the witnesses which is to be done by the civil court. The complainant is not consumer as he does not fall under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  On merits, the OPs have pleaded that the policy was entrusted on the basis of information furnished in the proposal form. The term of the policy was 16 years with annual premium of Rs.29,186/- and the policy was delivered to the complainant on 26.02.2014.  The complainant the OPs first time on 09.02.2014 that he has not received the policy and the complaint regarding forged/fake documents was received on 03.03.2014. The OPs cancelled the policy and the premium was refunded on 21.08.2014.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.4 did not file the reply within 45 days and accordingly the complaint was proceeded against OP No.4 vide order dated 14.12.2015.

4.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-25.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 to 3 consists of affidavit of Hem Lata, their Manager Legal Ex.OP-1/1.

6.             Evidence of OP No.4 consists of her affidavit Ex.OP-4/1.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, OP No.1 to 3 and OP No.4 in person and have gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant.

8.             The complainant has in the present complaint prayed for compensation for issuance of wrong policy by the OPs. As per the complainant the policy in question was issued to him by OP No.1 to 3 after purchasing the same through OP No.4 which does not pertain to him as all the documents attached with the policy, proposal form were forged and fabricated. The complainant has paid Rs.30,000/- as premium alongwith the proposal form. On checking it was found that the policy has been wrongly issued to him. During the pendency of his complaint with the OPs, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman vide his complaint dated 06.03.2014 against the OPs.  During the pendency of the complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman, the OP No.1 to 3 have cancelled the policy and refunded Rs.30,000/- to the complainant vide cheque dated 21.08.2014 Ex.C-16. Regarding delay in refund and the interest accrued on the deposited amount, the Insurance Ombudsman had passed the final order dated 10.02.2015 Ex.C-22 wherein the OPs were directed to pay 9% interest for the period from the date of raising the issue i.e. 09.02.2014 to the actual date of refund i.e. 21.08.2014. Not satisfied with the award of the Ombudsman, the complainant filed review application dated 24.02.2015 Ex.C-23 before the Ombudsman.   It is not clear on record whether the said review application is pending or had been adjudicated by the Ombudsman. However, the OPs in compliance of the Insurance Ombudsman order dated 10.02.2015 have paid the interest amount due to the complainant vide cheque dated 12.03.2015 which forms part of Ex.C-23.  After receipt of the cheque the complainant again wrote to the OPs vide Ex.C-24 dated 20.04.2015 that the payment of Rs.1420/- is not acceptable to him. However, it is not clear whether the complainant has returned the cheque to the OPs or not as there is nothing on record. So, therefore, it can safely be concluded that in the absence of any such action on the part of the complainant, the cheque in question has been got encashed by him. The OP No.1 to 3 have raised preliminary objection that once the complainant has approached the Ombudsman and they have complied with the orders of the Ombudsman and paid all the amount due to the complainant, the complainant ceases to be a consumer. The policy in question has already been cancelled. The amount of the premium has already been refunded and as per orders of the Ombudsman, penal interest awarded on account of mental agony and suffering has already stood paid to the complainant and these facts are not disputed by the complainant.  The counsel for OP No.1 to 3 have relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Dr. L.P. Kulshreshtha Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2014(3) CLT 400 wherein it has been held that once the petitioner has received the amount unconditionally and had also got the cheque encashed, under these circumstances, petitioner ceases to be ‘consumer’ as per the Act. The privity of contract or relationship consumer and service provider between the parties, if any, came to an end the moment petitioner accepted the refund unconditionally an also got the cheque encashed. Under the facts and evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that once the complainant’s policy has been cancelled which has been earlier issued to the complainant wrongly, the amount of the premium has been refunded and the order of the Ombudsman directing the OPs to pay penal interest @ 9% on account of mental agony and suffering to the complainant, having been complied with by the OPs, the privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider i.e. the complainant and the OPs came to an end and the complainant ceases to be a consumer.

9.             Therefore, the complaint under the facts and circumstances is not maintainable before this Forum. The complaint alongwith documents is hereby returned to the complainant for availing his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court, in accordance with law, if so advised. Office is directed to retain photocopy of the complaint and documents. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

April 26, 2016.     

                           (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                Member