Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/591/2012

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. BOOPATHY - Opp.Party(s)

A.S. KAILASAM AND ASSOCIATES

26 May 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                           Present:  Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi               PRESIDENT

                                          Thiru J. Jayaram,                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                          Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                                     MEMBER

F.A. No. 591 / 2012

                                      (Against the Order in C.C. No.36 / 2011, dated 23-11-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem)

Dated this the 26^th day of  MAY, 2015

  1. The Managing Director,                            ]

    ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd,                           ]

    1089, Appasahib Marathe Marg,                ]

    Dadar, Mumbai – 400 025.                        ]

                                                                 ]

2. The Manager,                                           ]

    ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd,                           ]

    Guindy, Chennai                                      ]

]

3. The Manager,                                           ]  Appellants /

    ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd,                           ]         Opposite Parties

    Salem – 636 004                                      ]

 

                   Vs.

1. P. Boopathy,                                            ]

    R14/2, Thermal Nagar III,                         ]

    R.E. Quarters,                                          ]

    Mettur Dam – 636 401                    ]

]

2. Secretary,                                                ]

    Consumer Awareness Movement,             ]

    1-1-165, Daniel Street,                             ]

    Meenakshi Nagar,                                    ]  Respondents /

    Madhaiyan kuttai – 636 452,            ]         Complainants

    Mettur Dam                                              ]

  

          This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 18-03-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellants:             -        M/s A.S. Kailasam & Associates

Counsel for Respondent:  -        Party in Person

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Salem in C.C. No.36 / 2011, dated 23-11-2011, allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties authorized their agents / advisors for canvassing premium from the public by giving Advisor Code Number or their identity, and one Mr. Kanagaraj and one Mr. Praveen Charles are such Members, and as canvassed by Praveen Charles and as per the instructions of Mr. Kanagaraj, the complainant invested Rs.1 Lac in the yearly policy by depositing Rs.50,000/- in Praveen Charles account at ICICI, Salem, and another sum of Rs.50,000/- by transfer from his friend’s account which was acknowledged by the letter of ICICI Bank on 7-12-2007, but the amount of Rs.1 Lac collected from the complainant was invested by the opposite parties in 5 policies as follows:

a)       Policy for Rs.10,000/- monthly mode of Rs.5,000/-;

b)       Policy for Rs.20,000/- yearly mode;

c)       Policy for Rs.25,000/- yearly mode

d)       Policy for Rs.25,000/- yearly mode

e)       Policy for Rs.10,000/- yearly mode, (not related to the 1^st complainant).

3.       Violation of the agreed condition of the complainant to invest the amount of Rs.1 Lac in a single policy of Rs.1 Lac (annual premium – yearly mode), by the opposite parties and investing Rs.25,000/- each for two annual policies (yearly mode) and investing Rs.10,000/- for one policy which is not related to the complainant and another policy for Rs.10,000/- monthly mode of Rs.5,000/- and allowing this policy to lapse, though excess amount out of Rs.1 Lac was with the opposite parties to pay the premium, and including a policy for Rs.20,000/- which was already issued through Mr. Kanagaraj, and all these amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint.  

4.       According to the opposite parties, they are not responsible or liable for the wrongful acts of their agents / advisors, and the complaint is barred by limitation, and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and there is no cause of action and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

6.       The opposite parties / appellants would first contend that the complaint is barred by limitation. Ex.A18 is the letter dated 3-2-2009, sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st complainant requesting him to pay the overdue premium of Rs.85,000/- for renewing the lapsed policy, Ex.A19, dated 9-10-2009 is the intimation letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st complainant intimating the fact that the policy lapsed; and Ex.A20 is the letter dated 9-2-2010 sent to the complainant by the opposite parties regarding the lapsed status of the policy, and the cause of action arose on the above dates also. Of course, as contended by the opposite parties, mere exchange of notices will not extend the period of limitation, but in this case Ex.A18 Ex.A-19, and Ex.A-20 give rise to fresh causes of action; and accordingly, the limitation period is to be determined with regard to the letter dated 9-2-2010 and therefore, the final cause of action arose on 9-2-2010 and the complaint is filed on 2-3-2011 within the statutory period of two years, as contemplated under Sec 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation, is untenable.

7.       The further contention of the appellants would be that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, who are the agents and advisors. The District Forum has analyzed this issue and has held that the complaint can sustain without impleading the agents / advisors and we agree with the District Forum in this regard.

8.       It is further contended that there is no cause of action in the complaint and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and that the complainant has raised substantial disputes which cannot be adjudicated under the summary proceedings. The District Forum has held that the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action arose at Salem and we agree with the District Forum in this regard. The District Forum can adjudicate any substantial disputes within its purview. Therefore, the contention of the appellants in this regard is unsustainable.

9.       The 1^st complainant paid an amount of Rs.1 Lac for annual policy, but part of the amount has been deposited for 5 policies as stated above, instead of an annual policy (yearly mode) against the condition stipulated by the complainant and this amounts to deficiency in service.

10.     The main contention of the appellants / opposite parties is that they are not responsible or liable for the acts and commitments of their agents / advisors. There is no force in this argument.

11.     The District Forum has relied on a decision of the State Commission, Delhi and has rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable for the acts of the agents / advisors and the opposite parties are responsible for the wrongful acts of the agent.

 12.    The Hon’ble National Commission has clearly stated that the agents / advisors are liable and responsible for the acts committed by them on behalf of the Insurance Company.

13.     The National Commission has held as follows:-

         ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Gurmeet Singh – IV (20110 CPJ 545 (NC)

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Insurance – Agent – Premium – Self cheque issued to agent – Agent failed to deposit – Forum allowed complaint – Hence revision – Contention, agent is adviser of insured and not the agent of company and not liable for any acts of adviser – Not accepted – Having garnered policy through him, it does not behove the Insurance Company to say that agent was adviser for insured and had nothing to do with them – Clauses in policy document are general and not explained to customer – Act of insurance is based on utmost good faith and if insured had trusted the agent who had earlier obtained policy document for him, conduct of Insurance Company resorting to such clauses to frustrate the claim of insured cannot be sustained

14.     On perusal of the policies, we find that the opposite parties have issued two annual policies 04594385 and 04608509 in the 1^st complainant’s name each for Rs.25,000/-. Among the 5 policies referred above, Policy No.04634224 for Rs.20,000/- (Annual Mode) was canvassed and issued through Mr. Kanagaraj which was again included in Mr. Praveen Charles’s account, and the Policy No. 04798245 for Rs.10,000/- was not in the name of the 1^st complainant, and Policy No.5314800 for Rs.10,000/- (Monthly Mode) was allowed to lapse, though the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1 Lac and the surplus amount out of Rs.1 Lac was with the opposite parties, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, excluding this amount of Rs.50,000/- from Rs.1 Lac paid by him, the opposite parties are bound to return the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in allowing their agents / advisors to collect premium from the public and not accounting for these amounts.

15.     For the reasons stated above, the District Forum has allowed the complaint, passing an order directing the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint (i.e. 2-3-2011) till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.

16.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that award of Rs.15,000/- as compensation is unwarranted.   

17.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum and setting aside the award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                  J. JAYARAM               R. REGUPATHI

       MEMBER                        JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT