ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.2.2012 passed in First Appeal No. A/10/601 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’) whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the insurance company and confirmed the order of District Forum.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Neel Kamal Ashwathama Meshram and his wife took home Loan from ICICI Home Loans (OP-2). As a part of master policy, the petitioner/ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd./OP-1 offered an insurance cover for the said loan.  It was accepted by the complainant and his wife.  They have completed all the loan formalities as informed by OPs 1 and 2.   For the premium, OP-2 transferred ₹29,941/- in favour of the insurance company (OP-1) on 10.04.2006. The complainant was paying regular installments.  The complainant’s wife expired on 7.8.2008 and the same was informed to OP-2.  On 20.09.2008, complainant submitted the death claim alongwith necessary documents to OP-1.  The insurance company/OP-1 denied the claim on the ground that complainant had never availed insurance.  OP-1 stated that the complainant had failed to file the application form of co-applicant.  The complainant alleged that OP never informed about the alleged requirement of application form.  As the OP-1 had accepted the premium amount, the complainant is justified to receive insured amount.  Therefore, aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (for short, ‘the District Forum’).

3. The OPs despite giving several opportunities, failed to file a written statement. Hence, an ex-parte order was passed by the District Forum and vide order dated 22-12-2009, partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to adjust ₹5,39,287.25 for loan amount, and to pay to the complainant ₹10,000 and ₹2000 towards damages and litigation expenses respectively, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP-1/M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Mumbai. The State Commission vide order dated 21.02.2012 dismissed the appeal.   Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP has preferred this Revision Petition.  .

5.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-1/Insurance company.  There is delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition.  For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is hereby condoned.

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a joint life insurance cover. The policy was not issued because the husband of complainant did not provide the required information as stated in the proposal form.  He brought my attention to the specific instruction in the proposal form that “in case of joint life cover, please fill in an additional form for the co-applicant and write the application number”. The counsel further submitted that, in pursuant to such direction, the complainant did not provide additional form for the co-applicant i.e. his wife, therefore, the petitioner has rejected the insurance request and refunded the premium amount to the complainant.  The counsel also brought my attention to paragraph ‘F’ of the proposal form.  The relevant part is reproduced as below:

                   “(F) Declaration & Authorization

xxxxxxxxxxxx

                    xxxxxxxxxxxx

                    xxxxxxxxxxxx

In case ICICI Prudential rejects the insurance request, the premium amount would be refunded to ICICI Bank and would be adjusted against the loan amount.

7.       The counsel for OP/petitioner submitted that the proposal form was filled on 7.4.2006 but as the complainant failed to submit application of co-applicant, the prayer was rejected.  Accordingly, the premium of ₹ 29,941/- was refunded to ICICI Home Finance by cheque drawn on ICICI Bank dated 7.6.2006.  The cheque was also debited from petitioner’s account.  Since the amount received by the petitioner was refunded back, there was no valid contract ever existed between the petitioner and the complainant.  The counsel further submitted that the complainant availed the loan, therefore, it was the responsibility of the complainant to obtain insurance cover for the loan under joint life policy. There was no role of OP-2 for the issuance of insurance policy.   As there was no insurance cover, the OP-2 was justified to recover the loan from the complainant. 

8.       The learned counsel for complainant submitted that, the complainant had neither received any information from the OP-1/petitioner about the cancellation of the policy, nor the refund of premium amount on 7.6.2006.  Therefore, the complainant was under impression that he was already covered under the joint insurance policy.  Moreover, prior to refund of the insurance, neither OP-1 nor OP-2 had asked to submit additional information of the co-applicant.  Therefore, it was the deficiency in service on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2.  The counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Commission in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Krishna Devi 2015 SCC online NCDRC 3833” and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bimal Kanta Kharab 1(2013) CPJ 155.

9.       I have perused the documents and the proposal form and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties.  Admittedly, the complainant had availed loan from OP-2 and for its protection, he took joint life insurance cover form OP-1/insurance company.  He filled the proposal form and submitted to OP-1.  The OP-1 had accepted the amount of ₹29,941/- towards premium.  In my view, the privity of contract between the complainant and the OP has been established.  The contention of OP-1 was that the complainant has not provided or filled the application form of his wife, the co-applicant.

10.     I have perused the reply sent by OP-1 to the legal notice served by the complainant dated 11.12.2008.  The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below:

“We state that during the course of underwriting of the said proposal form it was noticed that the proposer had opted for a ‘Joint Life Cover’, however, the proposer did not submit the necessary application form for the co-applicant.  Noticing the said discrepancy the company had raised a requirement for the said form of the co-applicant; vide its letter dated April 22, 2006.

We further state that the said requirement of application form of the co-applicant was never fulfilled by the proposer and as such the proposal for Home Assure Plan dated April 07, 2006  was declined by the company, vide it’s letter dated May, 20, 2006.

We further state that in view of the fact that the proposal was declined by the company, a cheque bearing number 000222907 dated June 05, 2006 for an amount of Rs.29,941/- towards refund of the first premium deposit was dispatched to the proposer and the same was presented by the proposer on June 07, 2006

Under the circumstances mentioned herein above the contract for insurance between the proposer and the company never came into existence and as such the company is not liable to make any payment to the proposer.

We state that we have never received any death claim intimation from your client.  We deny the allegation that the company has committed any default in providing efficient customer services.

11.     It is pertinent to note that OP-1 took the ground of repudiation that, the complainant failed to give the co-applicant’s application, therefore, insurance policy was not issued.  In my view, OP-1 had cancelled the policy unilaterally without informing the insured person.  OP-1 remitted back the amount of premium to the loan account but did not inform the complainant about the same.  OP-1 had neither given any notice of cancellation nor the information about the refund of amount of Rs.29,941/- to the complainant.  Moreover, there was nothing mentioned in the proposal form about the time limit for the proposer to provide the additional form of co-applicant.  Thus, on the frivolous ground, OP-1 wanted to repudiate the bona fide claim of the complainant.  It is also pertinent to note that the deceased had filled the proposal form on 7.4.2006 and issued a cheque dated 10.04.2006 for ₹29,941.  Therefore, OP-1 should have encashed the cheque, only after receipt of co-applicant’s form.  It was the duty of OP-1 to seek application before accepting the premium.   The entries in the column No. 7 of proposal form are misleading, because the amount for life assured was shown as ₹29,941/- - ₹10,741/- = ₹19192/=.  Nothing was mentioned why ₹10,741/- was deducted from total cheque amount.   It is clear that OP-1 had totally kept the complainant in dark about the joint policy cover.

12.     Section 21 of the Act under which present petition has been filed, confers rather limited jurisdiction unless there is some material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, no interference with the impugned order could be justified.  It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, as reported in 2013 (2) CPR 14 (SC),

13.     Based on the foregoing discussion, I do not find any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by both the fora below.  The revision petition is hereby dismissed.