Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/159/2015

Mr.A.S.Santhanam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poorvika Mobiles Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.S.Santhanam

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Complaint presented on:  05.09.2014

                                                                             Order pronounced on:  03.11.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 03^rd   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.181/2014

 

 

Mr.K.Sampathkumar,

#:33/14 “Vai Bhav Apartments”,

Peddunaicken Street,

Sowcarpet, Chennai 79.

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Manager,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Ramcons Towers,

#:1/2 Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai -34.

	......Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 16.09.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Natarajan

Counsel for opposite party                     : V.S.Manjula

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant applied for insurance to the Opposite Party for himself and his family members. The Complainant was issued Pru policy bearing #:16167204 type: Guaranteed Savings Insurance Plan on 30.11.2011. The sum assured as per the policy is Rs.3,44,400/- whose annual premium payable is Rs.49,200/-  The Complainant was shocked to receive a Pru policy  given by Opposite Party with a wrong name K.P.Sampath instead of K.Sampathkumar. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party and informed them of the grave error. After much struggle and explanation given, the Opposite Party had corrected the mistake in the name. The Opposite Party had also assured that this mistake will not occur. The Complainant keeps getting demand notices and other particulars of his policy only in the wrong name K.P.Sampath vide statements dt: 05.09.2013 and 11.02.2014. The Complainant is greatly shocked by this negligent act of the Opposite Party repeating the error again and again in his name. Thereafter the Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Party on 02.08.2014 which was received by them on 03.08.2014. The Opposite Party issued statement in the wrong name proves that he had committed Deficiency in Service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the entire premium amount paid by him and also compensation for Deficiency in Service and mental agony committed by the Opposite Party and with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The subject matter of the policy was issued on 07.01.2012 to the Complainant and cause of action arose in June 2012. After expiry of more than two years the Complainant has filed this Complaint which is barred by limitation. The Complainant alleged fabricated stories and incorrect version in the Complaint. The Complainant enjoyed the benefit of the policy of the insurance and now he wants to wriggle out of the same and even claim back the premium. The Complainant can withdraw the policy amount within the free look period. The Complainant failed to raise any objection within the free look period or returned the policy. The Complainant on receipt of policy document have gone through the document and brought the discrepancies if any within the above said period. The Complainant never approached this Opposite Party for refund of the policy amount within free look period and hence now at this stage he is not entitled for the same. The Complainant name is stated as Sampath.K in the benefit illustration; hence the allegation that the policy given by the Opposite Party bears a wrong name is false and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant insured for himself and his family members with the Opposite Party in guarantee savings insurance plan on 30.11.2011  and the Annual Premium payable is Rs.49,200/- and accordingly the Complainant paid the  premium amount on 30.11.2011 and Ex.A1 policy certificate issued to the Complainant and the payment receipt found at page 4 of the Ex.A1 policy certificate.

          5. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the Opposite Party is that he had issued the policy in the wrong name K.P.Sampath instead of K.Sampathkumar and immediately he contacted the Opposite Party and informed them such error and after much struggle  and explanation given to the Opposite Parties corrected the mistake in his name and thereafter the Opposite Parties issued Ex.A2 letter dated 05.09.2013 and Ex.A3 letter dated 11.02.2014 and both the letters again the wrong name was printed as K.P.Sampath  instead of his real name K.Sampathkumar and thereby the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service and hence the Complainant does not want to continue the policy and therefore he issued Ex.A4 legal notice dated 02.08.2014 to refund the premium amount paid by him and since he has not refunded the amount he had filed this Complaint.

          6. The Opposite Party would reply that the policy was issued in a correct name and though in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 the name was printed as K.P.Sampath in the very same document the policy  number of the Complainant and renewal date everything  have been properly mentioned and further there is no loss to the  Complainant  and his name also rightly printed in the benefit illustration and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7. Ex.A1 is the policy issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in his right name. The policy was dated on 07.01.2012. The contention of the Complainant that initially the policy was issued in the name of K.P.Sampath wrong person and that was corrected and thereafter issued Ex.A1 policy after much struggle to correct the name in Ex.A1 policy there is no correspondence made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party is filed. Further the Xerox copy of the wrong name found in the policy was not filed. Therefore in the circumstances as contended by the Opposite Party we accept that the policy was issued only in the name of the Complainant at the initial stage itself and not as contended by the       Complainant.

          8. The next contention of the Complainant that Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 letters issued by the Opposite Party contains the K.P.Sampath wrong name. No doubt such name is found. In Ex.A1 receipt it has been mentioned that next premium is due one 07.01.2013. Admittedly the Complainant has not paid next premium is due on 07.01.2013, since no receipt for such payment is filed by the Complainant. Likewise the third premium is due on 07.01.2014 was also not paid, as there is no proof filed for any such payment. Ex.A2 is issued that due premium of Rs.49,200/-for the Complainant’s policy shall be paid before 30.09.2013 the late payment fee will be waived. In the said letter if the premium due, is not paid before January 2015 the policy shall be terminated. However even after receipt such letter the Complainant has not paid the premium amount or he had written any letter to the Opposite Party to rectify the name found in that letter. However in Ex.A2 maturity benefit at page 10 Complainant typed set of document the correct name of the Complainant is printed. Even after receipt of Ex.A3 the Complainant has not taken any steps to rectify the name. The Complainant is due to pay after receipt of the policy next premium is on 07.01.2013. Since he has not paid the next premium and again another premium due on 07.01.2014, the Complainant became a defaulter. The Complainant without taking any steps to rectify the name, even though the policy number and other particulars are correctly available in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 letter, the defaulter Complainant cannot say that it is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant on receipt of such letter he owes a duty to pay the premium to the knowledge of the Opposite Party and to rectify the name. Without doing so the defaulter Complainant cannot allege Deficiency in Service on part of the Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the Complainant has not proved the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and accordingly this point is answered.

9. POINT NO :2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.      

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 03^rd day of November 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Policy with booklet

Ex.A2 dated 05.09.2013                   Opposite Party’s letter

Ex.A3 dated 11.02.2014                   Opposite Party’s letter

Ex.A4 dated 02.08.2014                   Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated 03.08.2014                   Postal ack due

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated 01.12.2011                   Proposal Form

Ex.B2 dated 01.12.2011                   Benefit Illustration Form

Ex.B3 dated 01.12.2011                   Rating Sheet

Ex.B4 dated NILL                             PAN Card Copy

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT