Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/20/2018

Tallam Arunakar, W/o Late T.Y. Sudhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director - Opp.Party(s)

Thota V.Ramesh

25 Apr 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 15-03-2018                                                                                                               Order Date: 25-04-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                        Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.20/2018

Between

Smt. Tallam Arunakar, W/o. Late T.Y. Sudhakar,

Aged bout 56 years, Residing at No. 15/1-67, G.S.Car Street,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                            … Complainant

 

And

1. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Executive Director, holding its

Office at ICICI Prue Life Tower, No. 1089,

Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevei,

Mumbai – 400 025.

 

2. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Executive Vice President,

Holding its registered office at Vinod Silks Mills Compound,

Chakravarthi Ashok Nagar, Ashok Road, Kandivali East,

Mumbai – 400 101.

 

3. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, holding its office at

No. 6-2-83, Bhavani Nagar, K.T.Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.

 

4. Miss. Bharathi, Agent in M/s. ICICI Prudential Life

Insurance Co.Ltd., holding her office at No. 6-2-83,

Bhavani Nagar, K.T.Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                   … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.03.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.Thota V.Ramesh, counsels for the complainant, and Sri.R.Madhusudhan Rao, counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4 is remained exparte having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum a)to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as assured with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of commencement of policy b) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and  deficiency in service and c) to pay Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

        2.The brief facts of the case are: the opposite party No.4 approached the complainant and introduced herself to the complainant and convinced her to opt insurance policy and collected sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.06.2010 from the complainant and issued a policy certificate bearing No.14028322. The complainant further submits that, opposite party No.4 taking advantage of the fact that she is having un-married daughter studying MBBS and convinced complainant in such a way if she invests some amounts in complainant daughter’s name she will get additional amounts within a short period of time which will be used for complainant daughter’s marriage even though the complainant will not pay any premiums in between, the complainant will get bank interest on the invested amount of all the policies.

       The complainant further submits that, having believed the words of the opposite party No.4, complainant entered in to an agreement to take two policies, one in the name of the complainant and another in the name of complainant daughter’s name T.C.Bhavana. The complainant has paid premiums continuously for three years till 2012 and opposite party No.4 asked the complainant to pay two more premiums as she will be benefited with less  deductions at the time of surrendering the policies i.e. 2013 and 2014. The complainant asked the opposite party No.4 to refund the assured amount, but they failed to pay the same in collusion with opposite party No. 3 and 4. Hence opposite party No.1 to 4 are jointly liable for their negligent attitude towards the complainant. Hence, she issued legal notice on 21.05.2014 but they failed to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid by her towards premiums of the policy.

        3. Hence the complainant approached Consumer Forum for relief of refund of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite parties, wherein the opposite parties admitted in their objections that they have adjusted Rs.3,00,000/- to the above policy No.14028322 which was issued on 10.06.2010 and for the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- they have provided two more policies Nos. 17109558 & 17832407 and collected premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for each policy  without the knowledge of the complainant and the said policy copies were delivered on 10.07.2017 to the complainant’s business area after passing an order in C.C.29 of 2014. Again the complainant got issued legal notice on 20.07.2017 and she demanded to refund Rs.2,00,000/- for which the opposite parties collected for two policies  i.e. 17109558& 17832407 each for Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties issued reply with all false allegations on 05.09.2017. Hence she filed the present complaint.

        4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed written version by admitting that, the complaint is not maintainable as the principle of Res Judicata was applicable. Admittedly the complainant had filed previous complaint C.C.29 of 2014 before this Honourable Forum claiming for refund of Rs.5,00,000/- for policy bearing No.14028322. After considering the pleadings of the parties the forum had passed an order dt: 15.07.2015 in favour of the present complainant to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. Accordingly the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.3,32,326/- vide cheque bearing No. 939140 and an amount of Rs.3,553/- vide cheque No. 939814 &939139 in favor of the complainant as she is the policy holder. Both the cheques were encashed on 15.10.2015 by the complainant without any protest. Thus the disputes between the parties had been laid to rest effectively by this forum. Therefore, the present complaint filed after the decision of the Honourable forum after in the earlier complainant in C.C.29 of 2014 is not maintainable and also the complainant has not challenged order of this forum before the State Commission. Hence the second complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties 1 to 3 further stated that this Complaint is barred by limitation as the disputed policies were issued and delivered to the complainant in the year 2012 and 2013 itself. Therefore the cause of action arose for filing the complaint in the year 2012 and 2013. The present complaint was filed in the year 2018 which is after delay of 5 to 6 years as the disputed policies were challenged in the year 2015 when the erstwhile complaint was filed. Hence the complainant has not explained inordinate delay for filing the present complaint. The opposite parties further stated that, as per the clause (6) (2) & (4) (1) of the IRDA protection of policy interest regulation, 2002. The company send the copy of the proposal form submitted by the complainant, covering letter, policy documents and first premium certificate to the complainant’s address on 02.11.2012 and 09.07.2013 and the same were received by the complainant on 03.11.2012 and 10.07.2013 respectively.

        5. Free Look Period:- After receiving the policy document, the policy holder has a period of 15 days i.e. free look period during which, if she is not satisfied with the conditions of the policy she could return the policy to the company. In such circumstances the company should refund the first premium amount subject to certain deductions in accordance with the regulations 6(2) of the IRDA regulation, 2002. Despite receipt of the policy documents the complainant did not approach the company within the mandate free look period.

          The opposite parties further stated that, for both policies i.e. 17109558& 17832407 the company was in receipt of only one premium and all further premiums were due since 30.10.2013 and 07.07.2014. Hence as per the terms and conditions of the policy the said policy was foreclosed on 30.10.2015 and 07.07.2016. Hence it was the duty of the complainant to pay the premiums on regular basis and the complainant cannot blame the company for the negligence on her part. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party no.4 set exparte.

         6.  The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, one Gopi Retnakar, Authorized Representative, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B8 were marked. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        7. Now the point for consideration is:-

        1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

        2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties1 to 3? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                   8.Point No.1:-  The counsel for the opposite party stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the policy was issued in the year 2012 and 2013 and the present complaint was filed on 15.03.2018. But the complainant clearly mentioned in the complaint that the policy was dropped in the shop of the complainant on 10.07.2017 without her knowledge, hence the limitation starts from 10.07.2017 on which date the policy was supplied to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed within limitation.

                    9. Point No.2:- The case of the complainant is, she took policies of the opposite parties through opposite party No.1 bearing No.14028322 and accordingly she paid the premium of Rs.5,00,000/- from 2010-2014. As the opposite party failed to refund the premiums even after several requests made by the complainant she filed C.C.29 of 2014 in District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati by claiming Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid by her towards premium to the opposite parties.

                  The opposite parties came in to appearance and filed the written version by admitting the policy and the premiums for three years for the policy bearing No.14028322 and denied the premiums which was paid in the year 2013 and 2014 and further stated that the complainant took two other policies bearing No.17109558 and paid the premium of        Rs.1,00,000/- and the policy was issued to the complainant on 30.10.2012 and other policy bearing No.17832407 which was issued on 26.08.2013and she paid Rs.1.00,000/- towards premium.

                    After perusing the evidence placed by both the parties the Honourable Forum passed an order on 15.07.2015 in C.C. 29/14 by directing the opposite party to pay       Rs.3,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant towards premium for the policy bearing No.14028322 and rest of the claim was dismissed, as the complainant failed to prove that the above said alleged two premiums was paid towards the policy bearing No.14028322.

                  10. The complainant further stated that, after passing the said order in C.C.No. 29 of 2014 the opposite parties delivered the policy copies bearing No.17109558 and 17832407 in the shop of the complainant without her knowledge on 10.07.2017. After receipt of the said policies i.e. Ex:A1 and A2 the complainant issued legal notice under Ex:A3 on 20.07.2017 calling upon the opposite parties to refund the premium of Rs.2,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant for the alleged two policies. But after receipt of the said notice the opposite parties issued reply notice under Ex:A4  dt: 05.09.2017 by stating that as per order in C.C. 29 of 2014 they have complied the order of this forum. As far as the alleged policies i.e.17109558 and 17832407 already the complainant received the policies and did not take any steps to revive the policy and the said policy was terminated. The complainant further stated that, only after disposal of the above C.C.29 of 2014 the opposite party delivered the policies and hence the complainant is under the impression that the premiums which were collected by the opposite parties in 2012 and 2013 are for renewal of the existing policy bearing No.14028322. But the opposite parties collected for other policies without her knowledge which is nothing but unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties.

                   The counsel for the opposite party stated that the complainant herself credit the premium for the alleged two policies which were issued in the year 2012 and 2013 policy bearing No.17109558 and 17832407 and she paid the premiums of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the above said policies and the complainant failed to renew the policies and the said policies were terminated. The counsel for the opposite party stated that they have issued policy copies to the complainant along with welcome kit and also stated that, in the said policy itself, it clearly stated that, if at all the complainant wants to withdraw from the policy she can withdraw during free look period. But the complainant kept silent without doing so. The counsel for the opposite party further stated that they sent SMS to the complainant, and in order to prove that the opposite party filed Ex:B6 which shows the SMS tracker sheet and also the opposite party marked Ex:B5 of the blue dart express limited  courier service which shows the delivery status of shipment and also stated that the above said policies were delivered to the complainant and stated that there are no latches on part of them and the complainant intentionally has not renewed the policy and failed to revive the policy. Hence the complainant is not entitled to the premium which was paid for the policies.

        11. After perusing the record filed by the both the parties there is no dispute regarding the policy issued by the opposite parties to the complainant which is the subject matter in CC.No.29 of 2014. The main dispute between the complainant and opposite parties are regarding the issue of the policy bearing No.17832407 under Ex:A2 issued by in the year 2013 and policy bearing No.17109558 under Ex:A1 in the year 2012 by receiving the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each. As per the contention of the complainant the above said policies were not delivered to the complainant till disposal of C.C.No.29 of 2014.After disposal of the said case the opposite parties delivered the same on 10.07.2017. But the counsel for the opposite parties stated that they delivered to the complainant immediately after receipt the premium on 2012 and 2013 and in order to prove the same they marked Ex:B5 which was issued by the blue dart courier service company which shows the delivery status of shipment of the said policies but it cannot be considered, as the above said delivery status of shipment does not contain the signature of the complainant and also the opposite party failed to file any affidavit to that effect to prove that the policy was delivered to the complainant within time. If at all those documents are true and correct there is no reason why the opposite parties have not filed those documents in C.C.No.29 of 2014 to prove their bonafides, but they failed to do so. If at all they are true they might have mentioned about the issuance of the said policies to the complainant in reply notice i.e. Ex:A4 on 05.09.2017. In the said notice it was clearly stated that the policies were issued to the complainant but they failed to mention to whom the policies were delivered. Hence the opposite parties have not filed any proof to show that they have delivered the policy copy to the complainant, thereby adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite parties. The opposite party without renewing the existing policy i.e. 14028322, issued new policy i.e.17109558 in 2012 and another policy of bearing No.17832407 in 2013 without valid reasons which clearly shows that they indulge in unfair trade practice in respect of customers.

       Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

                  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund the amount collected from the complainant towards premium of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the policy No.17109558 under Ex:A1 dt: 30.10.2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the policy No.17832407 under Ex:A2 dt: 26.08.2013 in total Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of issue of respective policies till the date of realization. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) to be shared equally towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands only) to be shared equally towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) also shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of April, 2019.

             Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                       

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. Tallam Arunakar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Gopi Retnakar (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy No. 17109558 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the Opposite Party. Dt: 23.10.2012 in Original.
	ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy No. 17832407 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the Opposite Party. Dt: 13.06.2013 in Original.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 4. Dt: 20.07.2017.
	Reply Notice( Your Notice Dt: July 20, 2017 sent on your behalf by Advocate Thota V. Ramesh with regards to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy bearing numbers 14028322, 17109558 and 17832407). Dt: 05.09.2017.
	Served copy of objections filed by the opposite parties in C.C.No.29/2014 (Photo copy). Dt: 19.09.2014.
	Office copy of Complaint in C.C.No.29/2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Proposal Form for Single Life. Dt: 13.06.2013. ANNEXURE-1.
	Photo copy of Benefit Illustration of ICICI Pru Guaranteed Savings Insurance Plan. Dt: 13.06.2013 and 22.10.2012. ANNEXURE-2.
	Photo copy of Medical Examination Report (MER). Examination Date: 13.07.2013. ANNEXURE-3.
	Photo copy of Policy Document –Terms and Conditions of your policy. ANNEXURE-4.
	Photo copy of ‘Delivery status of your shipment’- BLUE DART Express Limited, Mumbai and ‘Sales Acknowledgement for Hand Delivery-Policy No.17832407, Dt: 03.10.2013’. ANNEXURE-5.
	Photo copy of SMS Tracker i.e. ANNEXURE-6 for Policy Nos.17109558 and 17832407 of  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company sent to Mobile No. 9849168260 held by the insured Smt. Arunakar Tallam, R/o. 15-1/67, G Car Street, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. Dt: 30.05.2018.
	Addressing a letter from Authorized Signatory, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company, Mumbai to Mrs. Arunakar Tallam, W/o. Late T.Y. Sudhakar, R/o. 15-1/67, G Car Street, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh regarding Order Dt: 15.07.2015 passed by Hon’ble District Consumer Forum-II, Chittoor with respect to your complaint bearing numbers C.C.No.29/2014 and C.C.No.30/2014 under ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy bearing numbers 14025997 and 14028322. Dt: 15.09.2015. ANNEXURE-7.
	Informing Letter from Customer Service Team, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Mumbai  regarding Foreclosure (termination) of your ICICI Pru Policy No.17832407 due to non-payment of premium from 26.08.2014 to 26.08.2016. Dt: 29.08.2016. ANNEXURE-8.

 

 

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 4.