Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/768

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

Versus

SMT HEMLATA VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 25.11.2016

Date of Decision: 08.12.2016

Appeal No. 768/2009

 

(Arising out of the order dated 04.09.2009  passed in Complaint Case No.134/08 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-East Delhi.)

In the matter of:

M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089,

Appasaheb Marathe Marg,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025                                                         …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Smt. Hemlata Verma,

W/o Shri Sunil Verma,

02/58, Lalita Park,

Laxmi Nagar, 

Delhi-110092.                                                                                   ……….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The OP has preferred present appeal against the order dated 04.09.2009 passed by District Forum in CC No.134/08.  The appellant was OP-2 before the District Forum and OP-1 was India Infoline Insurance Services Ltd. through which proposal for insurance was made. The said OP has not been made a party in the present appeal.  Anyhow, the said OP is not a necessary paty as no relief has been sought against it.

 

2. The facts noted by the District Forum are that complainant/respondent herein applied for insurance vide application form no. 8424984 but she wrongly mentioned her maiden name Hemlata Soni instead of Hemlata Verma which she was using after marriage. The OP/appellant obtained her husband’s signature for authority letter for payment of premium of Rs.16,000/-. The OP did not appear despite issue of notice and was proceeded exparte.  Complainant filed her affidavit in evidence. After perusing record, it was found that issuing policy in wrong name is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, it was ordered that OPs would jointly and severely pay Rs.4000/- for physical and mental harassment, Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.  Further OP-2 would issue joint investment cashbook policy in the name of complainant and her husband, after taking complainant’s correct particulars.

 

3. Respondent was served in appeal.  She filed written submissions dated 15.12.2010 which are on record.  Afterwards, she stopped appearing and fresh notice were issued vide order dated 05.09.2011. Notice was served on counsel for respondent for 25.11.2016, on 17.10.2016 but none appeared. Hence, respondent has been proceeded exparte.

 

4. It is interesting to note that appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 18.03.2011.  Thereafter the same was restored vide order dated 05.09.2011.  The order of restoration is nonest being without jurisdiction. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitender Pathak Vs. Kashinath Karekar 2011 (9 SCC 541) that State Commission has no power to review and it cannot restore the matter dismissed in default or set aside the exparte order.

 

5. The counsel for appellant drew my attention towards proposal form for insurance copy of which is at pag-36 to 40.  The opening page contains the name of life to be assured as Hem Lata Soni and not Hemlata Verma.  Though she has signed her name as Hemlata Verma at page-39 but I do not feel that this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP/appellant. The OP was to issue policy in the name of person for whom the insurance was proposed. The said name is Hemlata Soni as mentioned in the column no.1 of the application form. Copy of secondary school certificate at page-41 also recites the name of complainant as Hemlata Soni.
6. The husband of complainant filled up the separate form for his insurance copy of which is at page-42 to 48. Its application no. is 8424984 whereas application no. of complainant was 8424892.  The District Forum passed the order on the basis of application form of husband of complainant and ignored the form filled up by the complainant.

 

7. The counsel for appellant submitted that a life policy can never be joint.  Reason being that it is not known as to who will expire first. In such situation, it will not be known as to when the policy will mature.  Arguments appear to be plausible.

 

8. The counsel for appellant also submitted that appellant was never served in the District Forum. To substantiate his plea, he pointed out that District Forum has not given the date for which OP was served. What to say more, it does not recite that appellant was served at all. Shat impugned order incorporates is that notices were ‘issued’ and not ‘served’.  Issuing of notice is not sufficient. It has to be served. 

 

9. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

 

10. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

11. One copy of this order be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

12. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         ​