Haryana

StateCommission

A/542/2015

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

Versus

RAM KUMAR MOR - Opp.Party(s)

CHETAN GUPTA

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.542 of 2015

Date of Institution:23.06.2015    Date of Decision:18.03.2016

1.       M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd,  Regd. Office ICICI Prul;ife Towers, 1089 Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st floor, Central Bank of India Building Atlas Road,Subhbash Chowk, Sonepat.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

1.       Ram Kumar More S/oSh.Daryao Singh

2.       Mehul Mor S/o Sh.Ram Kumar Mor

          Both residents of house no.1176, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh.Anirudh Kush, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

1. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. – OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby the complaint of Ram Kumar and his son  Mehul Mor-Complainants has been allowed and OPs have been directed to refund to the complainants, the amount of Rs.3,31,450/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.

 

2. Briefly stated, complainant No.1 Ram Kumar purchased in the year 2005 one policy No.01351676 in the name of complainant No.2 by depositing Rs.18000/- per year for 5 years i.e. total amount of Rs.90,000/-. After the lapse of five years, the complainant No.1 was paid Rs.84188/- by the respondents. Complainant No.1 further  purchased policies No.13893885, 16647998 and 15633859 as one time paid policies issued for a term of 7 as well as 10 years and the amount  accrued thereon was required to be refunded in the shape of double  the amount with bonus after three years. The complainant No.1 also deposited the amount of Rs.97000/- with the respondents on 10.01.2013 but instead of making payment of the deposited amount and bonus, the respondents issued one more policy in the name of the life assured complainant No.2 and the proposer complainant No.1. Thus three more policies were purchased by the complainants. When the complainants demanded the refund of the entire amount, the OPs declined to oblige him, whereupon the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum.   

 

3. OP contested the complaint by pleading that complainants had themselves opted for the annual premium paying mode under the policies in question and paid only one premium each under the policies bearing No.15633859, 17044876, 17188116 and 17361211. Since they did not pay any premium thereafter, the policies got lapsed as per terms and conditions, which provided that if the policy holder was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could return the policy within a period of 15 days i.e. under the free look period. The complainant had taken all the policies in different months with a gap of almost 2-3 months between each policy from 2010 to 2013. The OPs further stated that in fact the complainants had taken the policies through an independent Insurance Broker namely M/s India Infoline Insurance Brokers and M/s Net Ambit Insurance Brokers. This insurance broker is an independent entity under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), over whom the appellants did not have any control whatsoever. The complainants did not implead these brokers as necessary parties to the complaint. OPs further pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum as it was not a consumer disputes, but a business transaction arising out of contractual stipulations and terms and conditions of the insurance policies. On this basis, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 26.03.2015 by directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.3,31,450/- to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.

 

4.

5.

6. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwala’s case if a policy has been obtained for the purpose of benefit then the said person is not considered as consumer and complaint before consumer fora is not maintainable.

7.

March 18th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.