Sri Samir Kumar Kolley,

son of Sri Sital Chandra Koley,

residing at Balitikuri, Bakultala,

P.O. Balitikuri, P.S. Jagacha,

District – Howrah,

PIN - 711113.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Branch Manager,

            ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.

            having its branch office at P 4, Dobson Lane,

            Howrah – 711101.

2.         The General Manager,

            ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.

            having its registered office at ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089,

            Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025.-----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant Samir Kolley by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to transfer all six numbers of regular premium paying insurance policies to Unit linked single premium insurance policy or to refund entire amount of Rs. 1,73,000/-, so paid, by him to O.Ps., to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant approached O.P. no. 1 to purchase

one single premium Unit linked insurance policy and O.P. no. 1 assured him that everything would be  arranged as per his desire and requirement. On being assured, complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- through cheques drawn in favour of O.P. on different dates  from 07-07-2012 to 26-08-2012 and those cheques were handed over to one agent of O.Ps. vide xerox copy of proposal form being running page numbers 11 to 13. But to his utter surprise, in place one single premium based unit linked insurance policy, O.Ps. made six different regular premium paying sum assured based insurance policies in annexure running pages 10 to 33 for which complainant is required to pay a total amount of  Rs. 1,73,000/- in a year for six policies. Moreover, as per terms and conditions of the policies, he is  required to continue such payment for seven continuous years and  only after complying with such terms and conditions, complainant would be able to get his due amount after fifteen years from the date of initiation of such policies. Complainant, being a self-employed electrician, working from door to door, felt distressed as it would be quite impossible for him to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- yearly for seven continuous years. Immediately, he went to O.P. no. 1 and requested them to rectify such error and the officials of O.P. no. 1 also convinced him with all misleading assurances that it would be rectified within a very short period. But nothing happened and when complainant went to the office of O.P. no. 1 on 05-11-2012 with the same request, he was told that nothing could be done as he had lost his opportunity to cancel those policies during free-look period. And ultimately on 15-11-2012 vide annexure running page 34 by sending a letter, O.Ps. informed the complainant that nothing could be done as he did not avail himself of the opportunity of free-look period of 15 days from the date of sending policy documents when he could have refused to accept those six policies , so prepared by the O.Ps. in place of one single premium based unit linked policy. Being helpless and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition before this Forum praying for aforesaid prayers.

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written reply. Complainant also

filed affidavit in reply and evidence on affidavit  in support of his pleadings.  

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            On going through the

written reply dated 04-03-2013 filed by O.Ps, we find that vide para 2 , O.P. have accepted the prayers of the complainant partly. Regarding the cancellation of six regular premium paying insurance policies, O.Ps. have no problem and they are willing to do the same and give him one unit linked insurance policy for the amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- which he paid to them. In other way, they are also willing to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- to the complainant. So, O.Ps. have admitted their mistake. We all know that mere admission of a mistake by the O.Ps. does not take away the merit of the case not even it  reduces the degree of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to such arbitrary action. Why such a big and renowned organization like O.Ps. should commit such a mistake by way of providing all misleading assurances. In this way they would certainly lose their business. Taking insurance policy is a very  emotional affair of  a person. O.Ps. have hurt that part of the complainant. By such fraudulent and unfair trade practice, complainant would now suspect all other insurance companies. And it is very painful for a person to live with such a suspicious mind. It is a total emotional loss that complainant was compelled to incur due O.Ps. unfair trade practice which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Also in our opinion, o.ps are negligent and regardless to the human values, and it would not be good for the complainant to keep his life-long earnings with the O.Ps. any more. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  11 of 2013 ( HDF 11 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against all the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- to the complainant along with a further payment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs

      That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the total amount of  Rs. 2,03,000/-  to the complainant within a month from the date of this order, i.d., the total amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .