Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/35/2015

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/35/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	20/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	19/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

1. Satnam Singh, resident of House No.3156, Paradise Enclave, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.

 

2. Amarjit Kaur, resident of House No.3156, Paradise Enclave, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO 9-10-11, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

 

2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 134-135, Madhya Marg, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

 

3. The SMGR Officer, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakravarthy, Ashok Road, Kandirali (E), Mumbai – 400101.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.
For OP No.2 & 3	:	Sh. Mashwinder Singh, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

                In brief, cajoled by the green pastures about good returns, projected by the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainants invested Rs.1.00 lac, in June 2012, as one time investment, for being invested in the Government Securities Fund. The Complainants accordingly received 02 Policies No.16740160 and 16740999 respectively, after a gap of six months, with product name mentioned as “ICICI Pru Life Stage Wealth II”, having frequency as Yearly/Monthly. It has been alleged that on receipt of renewal premium, when the Complainants came to know that they were misled for investing their hard earned money, they contacted the Opposite Parties, but their grievance was not redressed. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Complaint dated 12.08.2013 (Annex-1) with Opposite Party No.2, in response whereof vide letter dated 27.08.2013 (Annex-2), it was intimated that their grievance was resolved. Thereafter, the Complainants sent letters dated 24.09.2013 (Annex.3 & C-4) to the Opposite Party No.3, but the same were never replied. Furthermore, due to the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant No.1 had foreclosed his earlier taken ICICI Life Stage Pension Plan Policy No. 11225701. A Complaint dated 13.09.2013 in this respect made by the Complainant No.1 is annexed as Annex-5. Eventually, the Complainants approached the Opposite Party No.2, for refund of Rs.1.00 lac, by cancelling the Policies in question, but they were handed over copies of Statements of Accounts (Annex-6 & 7). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that the Complainants had entered into an agreement with the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the purposes of availing of a policy of insurance and had also executed documents in respect of the same. Since the aforesaid contract was between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, the answering Opposite Party has been unnecessarily made a party. While stating that the OP-1 (Bank) does not offer any Government Security Funds, it has been urged that the Complainants are educated persons and they knew very well that where their money was being invested. Moreover, in case the Complainants had any dispute, they should have raised the same with the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 (Life Insurance Company) and the OP-Bank did not have any role to play in the same. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that based on the information stated in the Proposal Forms dated 18.06.2012, they issued the Policies bearing no.16740160 and 16740999 on 20.06.2012 and 22.06.2012 respectively. The policy documents were sent to the Complainants stating the policy terms & conditions and a forwarding letter stating the free look provision. The Complainants retained the policies during free look period and did not approach the Company for cancellation of the same within the free look period of 15 days. It has been asserted that the Complainants had paid only one premium against the aforesaid Policies and all the subsequent premiums remained unpaid, due to which the policies were in discontinued mode. The Complainants for the first time approached the answering Opposite Parties pertaining to the policies in question on 17.08.2013 i.e. after a lapse of one year. Hence, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 27.08.2013 communicated their decision to the Complainant No.1 (Anneuxre-4) and further vide letter dated 09.10.2013 re-confirmed their decision (Annexure-5). It has been further pleaded that the Policy No. 11225701 (Life Stage Pension) was surrendered by the Complainant No.1 on 14.08.2013 and accordingly the answering Opposite Parties under the policy terms & conditions had paid Rs.80,085.91/- on 20.08.2013 by NEFT. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant No.1 in person and learned Counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainants.

 

7.      The Complainants had invested in the ICICI Pru Life Stage Wealth II Plan, in June 2012, and accordingly received two policies bearing no. 16740160 and 16740999. After receiving the policy documents the Complainants had a free look period of 15 days during which if they were not satisfied with the applicable provisions of the subject policies, they could revert back the policies to the Company. In such circumstances, the Company would refund back the first premium amount deducting the necessary charges under the policy term and conditions.

 

8.      Now, the core question to be determined as to whether the Complainants approached the OP-Company within the free look period of not? The answer to this is in negative.

 

9.      It is an admitted fact that the Complainant did not read the policy documents and consequently did not avail the option of returning the policies within the free look period of 15 days. The Complainants have themselves admitted that vide letter dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure-1) they raised their concern for the first time with the Company pertaining to the Policies in question. Even otherwise, the stand of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 is that the Complainants for the first time had approached the Company on 17.8.2013 and 11.9.2013 respectively. Be that as it may, the Complainants retained the policies during the free look period and did not approach the Company for cancellation of the policies within the free look period of 15 days after the receipt of the policy documents. Once 15 days cooling off period is over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them. Hence, now the Complainants cannot make the Company liable for their own negligent acts.

 

10.      The insurance being a contract between the policy holder and the Company both the parties are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy documents. Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution. In this regard, reliance is placed on Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Limited Vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 567. 

 

11.      The Complainant No.1 also raised his concern with regard to Policy No. 11225701 (ICICI Life Stage Pension Plan) which was issued on 8.2.2009. Admittedly, the Complainant surrendered the said policy on 14.08.2013, but approached for the first time alleging grievance for the subject policy on 13.09.2013 (Annexure-5). Accordingly, the surrender request was processed by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and the amount of Rs.80,085.91/- was credited to the account of Complainant No.1 on 20.08.2013 by NEFT. 

 

12.      Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainants have not been able to prove their case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Rather, the Opposite Parties have succeeded in proving their defence. Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

13.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

19^th October, 2015                            

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER