Date of Filing:20.01.2021

Date of Disposal:29.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainant files a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 with a direction to OP to pay sum of  Rs.4,83,892/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.,  and Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency of service for the metal agony and harassment and  such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

This is the case of the complainant that the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.1,24,64,000/- with OP and the OP have sold the insurance on the said loan with ICICI Prudential group loan secure policy and on 01.11.2019 the OP sent email with insurance details bearing policy no.31568954 with insurance cover for Rs.1,00,00,000/- for 10 year with premium of Rs.9,81,878/-. On 02.11.2019 the complainant has revertedto the email concurring to the policy. Further the complainant received letter dt.27.11.2019 from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance enclosing the policy benefits and also death benefits.The complainant sent mail on 04.12.2019 to cancel the policy and the credit manager committed to change the complainant’s existing policy to new policy and again the complainant requested to cancel the existing policy with ICICI prudential life insurance. Again on 24.02.2020 the complainant wrote an email to the customer care department of OP for cancellation of existing policy and the complainanton 01.03.2020 via email surrendered by policy and on 02.04.2020 the OP reverted to the complainant stating that surrender value would be 50% of the premium and sought confirmation from the complainant. Aggrieved by the act the complainantwrote a letter to the Bajaj Ombudsman team on 03.04.2020 stating that the insurance policy was never accepted but forced down on him. The complainant further submits that the OP has refunded a sum of Rs.5,57,986/-, but the OP ought to have refunded Rs.9,81,878/- which is original premium amount that has been paid by the complainant. Hence, aggrieved by the act of the OP the complainant filed this present complaint seeking refund of insurance premium amount and such other reliefs.

3. Notice to OPs duly served, represented by counsel, filed written version, chief examination affidavit and also relevant documents in support of their defence.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of their plea.

5.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is Maintainable?
2. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
3. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                  :  Negative

Point No.2                : In view of the findings given to point  no.1, consideration of Point No.2 does not arise.

Point No.3                  :  As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-  From the perusal of the complaint averments and also by taking note of the objections raised by the OP by way of version. By observing the same the commission has opined as follows. The OP has raised the question of non-joinder of complainant’s wife as a necessary party in the complaint. Since, both the complainant and his wife Smt.Sujatha Narasimhan Babu have jointly availed loan from the OP for a sum of Rs.1,24,64,000/-. This is joint loan borrowed  by the complainant and his wife from the OP financial institution. The OP has contended that even though it is joint loan borrowed  by both complainant and his wife in the present dispute which is filed before the commission. The complainant is only arrayed as the party and his wife being the joint loan borrower, she is not at all made as necessary party in the complaint. When such being the case, the complaint suffers from technicality that one of the co-borrower of the loan when they are not being made as party to the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party in the complaint.

9. In the absence of complainant wife in the complaint, the complaint deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party in the complaint. The OP has also raised another question as point of maintainability of complaint that the dispute pertaining to the issuance of the insurance policy which is availed by the complainant, in so far as covering the financial assistance i.e. home loan which is borrowed from the OP. The insurance policy is availed by the complainant from the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company and the complainant alleged that since the said policy is availed by them, when the complainant has opted for  cancellation of the said policy within Free Look Period. Despite of the request the insurance company has refused to cancel the policy and also refused to refund the entire premium which has been paid by the complainant. On this transaction the present OP being the financial institution and they transacted with the complainant only pertaining to the availment of housing loan. This OP is no way concerned with the ICICI Insurance Company who  issued the insurance policy to the complainant which covered the home loan of the OP bank. On this contention, the OP contended that the complaint which is filed by the complainant suffers from another technicality. Wherein the complainant has failed to array the  insurance company as necessary and proper party in the complaint. That the complaint which is filed by the complainant and the relief which is  sought in the complaint is for the refund of balance insurance premium amount and also for the cancellation of the policy which is issued by ICICI prudential group. From the perusal of the contentions of the both parties, it is very clear that this dispute of the complainant pertaining to his insurance policy which is availed by him from ICICI prudential group. The complainant has  questioned the act of the insurance company when the complainant has sought for the cancellation of the policy and also sought for the refund of the premium amount well within free look period of the said policy. This issue is questioned by the complainant and the complainant raised objection that even though insurance company have only refunded the partial amount of the insurance premium.  When the complainant has cancelled the said policy well within Free Look Period, the insurance company is liable to refund the entire insurance premium amount as per terms and conditions of the policy. This being the grievance of the complainant, the complaint is maintained by the complainant as against the financial institution. The complainant has not arrayed the ICICI Insurance Company as a necessary and proper party. This insurance company being the party to the said insurance transaction which took between the complainant and the insurance company and as they are necessary and proper party in order to justify the action of refusal to repayment of balance amount. When the insurance company is not arrayed as a necessary party in the complaint, the complaint as against the financial institutional is not maintainable. When the complainant has no grievance as against the financial transaction and when the complainant has questioned the action of the insurance company and also questioned the refusal   to pay the balance insurance premium amount who have been a necessary and proper party in order to justify their action in the said transaction and in the absence of the insurance company in the complaint, the complaint will have to dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party in the complaint.

10. In view of the discussion and by considering the facts of the case the complaint deserves to be dismissed as it is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party in the complaint. In view of the above discussion, the Point No.1 we answer in Negative.

11. POINT NO.2:- In view of the findings given to point  no.1, consideration of Point No.2 does not arise.

12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. Complaint is  hereby dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Rajagopal Narasimhan Babu-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Sri Mahesh.B.J.-who being Authorized representative of OP

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*