Orissa

Rayagada

CC/11/2021

Sri Shaik Bokhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__11_______/2021                          Date.   26.8.2022       

P R E S E N T .

 

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President.

Sri   Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi.                                           Member

 

Sri   Shaik Bokhari, S/O: Shaik Sabudin, At: Raniguda Farm,  Near HP Gas Company, Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha) 765 001, Cell No. 7008702677.

                                                                        ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential  Life  insurance , Rayagada Branch, State:Odisha.

2.The  Manager, ICICI Prudential life insurance Co. Ltd.,  Regd. Office  1089, Appasaheb  Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi   Regd.  No. 105, Mumbai- 400025.

                                                                        …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self..

For the  O.Ps:- Sri  Santosh  Kumar  Mishra and associates.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 Brief facts of the case summarized here under.  That  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of deposited amount towards  policy  No.21275719  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version & prayer   to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, and submitted that  the facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  the case  and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

Further  the O.Ps have filed  evidence by way of affidavit  during the course of the hearing.

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

It is an admitted fact that  the  complainant  was a bonafide  policy  holder under  the O.Ps  vide  policy No. 21275719  and the payment method was yearly  basis  and premium  installment Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakhs)only    per annum.  Undisputedly the complainant had  opened the policy  on Dt. 11.3.2017   and  the complainant had  paid 2(two) numbers  yearly   premium and paid    total  a sum  of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakhs)only.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  now he is unable to  continue the  above policy  further   due to non running of business  for  Covid -19.     Hence  prays to  direct the O.Ps to  refund  the deposited  amount.  Hence this C.C.   case  filed by the complainant  to get relief.

On the other hand  the O..Ps  in their   written version  contended  that  as the case is time barred  be dismissed.

Actually  the complainant  during the year 2019   had intimated the O.Ps  as    he was unable  to deposit  the premium for the year 2019 and to refund  the deposited   amount.    When the O.Ps  had not heard the  grievance of the complainant  the complainant had  field this C.C. case  before this  commission  on Dt.22.1.2021.  Till date the O.Ps had not repudiated the claim of the complainant.    Hence due to made correspondence with the O.Ps by the complainant  question of  barred of limitation  does not arise.

The O.Ps.   (Insurance  Co.) in their written  version  contended that   under the IRDA (Protection of policy holders interest) Regulations, 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically   provides for a free look period  of 15 days  during which period the policy  owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request  for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and condition of the policy.  The complainant  had not reported for cancellation of the policy  but consequently deposited two premium amounts.

Further  the complainant had failed to pay the premium amount due on Dt. 11.3.2019   therefore status of said policy  was  changed  to lapse and  same was  also intimated  to the complainant.

The O.P. relied citations in their written version which are mentioned here under.

 In the case of  General   Assurance Society  Ltd. Vrs. Chandmull Join reported in  1966  (3)  SCR 500 the Hon’ble Apex Court . where in  observed   “In interpreting  documents relating to a contract of insurance the duty of the commission  is to interpret the words  in which the  contract is expressed by the  parties, because it is not for the  District  commission  to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have  not  made it themselves”.  Similarly, in the case of  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vrs. Samavanalalur Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank reported in   AIR- 2000 SC-10 the Hon’ble Apex Court  where in observed “The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained  in  it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given  to the words appearing  in it”.  Further  In the case of Polymat India Pvt.  Ltd and Anr. Vrs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.  Reported in  AIR 2005 SC 286   where in the Hon’ble Apex court  observed   “The  terms of the  contract  have to be construed  strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely”.

The O.Ps   (Insurance  Co.) in their written  version  contended   that the said policy stood lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the policy  and due to non payment of  renewal premium.  Hence complainant should have no grievance  against the O.Ps(Insurance  Co.) and  no cause of action stands existing and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of cause of action.

The  learned counsel  for the O.Ps.   (Insurance Co.)  vehemently advanced arguments on the ground that the complainant after payment of 2(two) numbers   premium  did not pay any renewal premium  and as such not entitled for any claim.  But in this regard there is no any endorsement or any intimation  to the complainant herewith  submitted by the O.Ps

The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer?   The contention that the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act  is longer res integra  inview of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in case of Neelavasant Raje Vrs. Amagh Industries and Another  reported  in 1993 (3) CPR page No.343 where in  it has been held that where a company or firm  invites deposits promising attractive rate of interest, it amounts  to rendering  of financial  services as it receives deposits  from customers/consumers and pays interest  therein. The consideration for the  hiring of the service is the payment of deposit  amount  so as to enable the company to invest or utilize the money for  earning profits.  Therefore the deposit holder the complainant  would be a consumer  under the C.P. Act.  Further when a deposit has been accepted to be repaid with interest and admissible  benefits.   It is a service to be rendered and failure  to repay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps (Insurance Co.) in the instant case accepted the deposit and agreed to render service by way of  returning the principal  with  interest and admissible benefits.  The consideration being the   deposit amount. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case we do not find much force in the contention of the  O.Ps.  as the complaint petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act.

There is no dispute about the 2(two) numbers yearly premium a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs)only  made by the complainant to the O.Ps..  This District commission  perused the papers submitted by the  complainant . On perusal of the  record  this  Commission found  that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00  (Rupees lakhs)only  two Nos. yearly premium    in the office of the  O.P.  It is evident  from the  record  filed and  pleadings put  forward that the  O.Ps    had accepted  the deposits promising to  pay  interest and admissible benefits after completion of the tenure  of 10  years  fixing annual  installment of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  It is their duty to  refund deposited  amount  to the complainant along with interest and admissible benefits failing do so is  an act of  deficiency of service.  In the instant case the complainant  from the  very beginning  not interested to continue  to  invest his money.

As argued by the complainant  in the present case at the time of  proposal form sign the complainant was asked  by the agent  of the O.Ps to  sign on the doted lines without explaining  the benefits of the  scheme and  the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing.  The agents responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/S- 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agents has failed to discharge the duty as an agent and in order to get his income as commission has falsely represented the rural folks to divert their money.  Hence the OPs had clearly violated the  norms  issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the OP No.2(Insurance  Co.) is  liable to refund  the amount paid by the complainant.

In view of the discussion above it is found to be an  unfair  trade practice made by the agent of the  O.Ps.  The O.Ps have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural and urban people as seen from the Complaint petition and  argument advanced  by him,   as such the complainant is  entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant in the said scheme so as to enable them to invest the same with their choice  for livelihood.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                   ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition stands  allowed  in  part  on contest against the O.Ps.  (Insurance Co.)

The O.Ps  are  ordered to  pay  the  surrender value  of the  policy  No.21275719  to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced  on this        26^th.    day  of  August, 2022.

 

 

Member.                                         President