PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.6.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 435/2012 – Prof. Arun K Lall Vs. Financial/Insurance Advisor, M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. & Appeal No. 03/2013 Prof. Arun K. Lall Vs. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District forum allowing complaint was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner in the year 2007, had subscribed for three different policies by filling up the proposal forms. On the advice of the agents of the Opposite Parties/Respondent, Mr. Atul Vij and Mr. Amit Rai, who were having the company I.D. Cards to prove their identity and status in the organization, complainant preferred to invest Rs. 3 lacs by subscribing for three insurance policies in the name Life State RP (2 Nos) and one Life State Pension. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in total, and the policies were issued in his name on 04/09/2007, 22/09/2007 and 31/12/2007 respectively. As per the assurances of the Opposite parties, the said insurance policies were to fetch 20-25% returns. When the complainant did not find anything concrete, he contacted the agents, and enquired about the status of the policies. Complainant received an e-mail dated 13/01/08, whereby a brief detail of the high returns to the tune of 20-25%, on the fund was provided to him. Complainant thereafter continuously remained in touch with the Agents, reminding them, about the commitment and also registering his grievance. It was further stated that on not getting a proper response, from that end, and finally feeling disgusted, the complainant once again mentioned that no complete information was forthcoming as mentioned in Appendix-VII dated 10/08/2009. It was further stated that the complainant was advised that in order to maintain the quantum of profit, he must pay the premium amount due against him, as the policies were nearing renewal for the 2nd premium and was also advised to cancel one of the policies, so as to meet the requirements of fresh policy, as he had expressed difficulty in arranging money. It was further stated that the complainant did not wish to continue with the different policies, to which he had subscribed, on the advice of the Opposite Parties, but under compelling circumstances, he preferred to revive the same. It was further stated that even after completing all the formalities for reviving these policies, no response was forthcoming from the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that first policy was in force whereas policy no. 06174600 was foreclosed and policy no. 07219597 was in a paid up status. It was further submitted that the policy certificate along with policy documents, in original, were dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by him. It was further stated that the investments in the units were subject to market and other risks and, thus, there could not be any assurance, with regard to the objective of any of the funds that they might achieve. It was further stated that the document (Appendix-IV) of the complaint was not an authorized communication issued by the Company, as it did not bear the company’s seal or name of an authorized signatory. It was further submitted that allegations in the complaint were required to be tried by Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to release Rs. 2 lakh illegally retained, with interest @ 9% p.a. and further allowed Rs. 1 lakh as compensation on account of deficiency in service. Both the parties filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide order dated 7.3.2013 allowed both the appeals partly and enhanced quantum and modified order and directed Opposite Party to pay Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and kept intact order of the District Forum allowing Rs.2 lakh to be returned by the Opposite Party to the complainant. 3. OP had filed R.P. No. 2689-2690 of 2013 and vide order dated 20.2.2014 while allowing revision petitions, order of learned State Commission was set aside and matter was remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeals afresh after considering documents taken on record. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed appeal partly and modified order of District Forum against which these revision petitions have been filed. 4. Heard petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Petitioner submitted that learned State Commission had committed error in allowing appeals partly and directing OP to pay surrendered value of two policies; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed. 6. Learned State Commission rightly observed that policies are to be governed by terms & conditions enshrined therein and has rightly declined to rely on the assurance of agents and so-called pamphlet (to whom it may concern which is not authorised communication). Learned State Commission after elaborate discussion and after referring Clause 2.2, 4.1 and 10 of the conditions of policy rightly came to the conclusion that Policy No. 06174600 and 07219597 stood foreclosed and amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- sent by complainant to OP was considered for revival of first Policy No. 06121385. Learned State Commission rightly set aside order of District Forum in which it was held that OP illegally retained Rs.2,00,000/- sent by complainant. Learned State Commission has rightly allowed Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of issuing 3 policies with Rs. 1,00,000/- premium for each policy against annual income of Rs. ,4,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- lakhs of the complainant and not issuing premium paid certificate to the complainant for a period of 2 years. 7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. |
