Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/10

Shreekrishana Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director & President, ICICI Prudential Life Insruance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pushpanjali Kumari

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

          C C No. 10/2018                                            

Date of filing 27-01-2018

                   Date of Disposal 07-06-2022

           ShreeKrishana Prasad S/o- Rachandra Prasad,

  R/o- Qr.No.- EF-13, DVC, CTPS Colony, P.O.&P.S- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro

Vr.

1. The Executive Director & President, ICICI Prudential Life Insruance Co. Ltd. Reg- Offcie at ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089, Appasahab Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai

 2. Branch Manager ICICI Purdential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office- Ram Mandir, Near Vikram Enterprises, Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City

         

Present:-

          Shree Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                          :-Order:-

 

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for return of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 18% interest  from date of deposit  and to pay Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively to him.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that the agents of the O.Ps. (ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) persuaded and enticed the complainant for investment and they assured that the investment amount will  become double on completion of three years period hence complainant has handed over one cheque of Rs. 50,000/- for investment in the name of his son Anirudh Prasad in Mutual fund scheme for favour of ICICI Life Insurance.  While complainant was expecting about double of the amount he became shocked on receipt of letter related to renewal of the policy by deposit of Rs. 48,500/- to which he paid.  Further case is that immediate after receipt of said letter complainant contacted the agents of the O.Ps. who gave assurance and said that one more installment was to be paid hence complainant felt himself cheated and due to his poor financial condition he was unable to continue the policy,  hence he started to write letters to O.Ps. for refund of his deposited amount having no response. Further case is that lastly inspite of issuance of legal notice no response was shown hence case has been filed.
3.  O.Ps. appeared and they have filed W.S. mentioning therein that after investment of the amount, policy holder is being intimated with welcome letter and policy paper with direction to the insured to inform the insurance co. within 15 days in case insured disagrees to any of the terms and conditions of the policy and he is having option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objection. Further reply is that case is time barred because policy was issued on 25.03.2013 hence cause of action arose on that very day but case has been filed after two years from that very day which is liable to be dismissed. Further case is that inspite of dispatch of policy paper on 01.04.2013 no objection was raised and in the month of Feb. 2016 complainant approached for cancelation of the policy which was not permissible hence it was declined. Inspite of receipt of the policy in time complainant never raised any objection on the policy nor he raised that policy has been mis-sold or he wants refund of the deposited amount, hence as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed. As per terms and conditions of the policy in case less than three premium have been paid by the policy holder then policy will lapse at the end of grace period and no benefits will be paid to the policy holder.  Further case is that company received a dully filed up and signed proposal form in the name of Anirudh Prasad hence on that very basis policy was issued to the satisfaction of the complainant and inspite of receipt of policy paper and expiry of cooling period there was no prayer for cancelation of the policy hence as per terms and conditions of the policy complainant was required to pay continuously  premiums for three years and thereafter policy was liable to be surrendered. But prior to that very period it was tried to be surrendered but it has not been done.    In this way case is liable to be dismissed.
4.  In light of pleadings of the parties question for determination is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed? And whether complaint is time barred ?

 

5. On perusal of the papers submitted by the complainant it appears that Annexure A-1 is the photo copy of the policy paper and Annexure B is the photo copy of policy certificate. Annexure 2-A is photo copy of the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant and annexure 3-A series is reply of the legal notice.    
6. On the other hand O.Ps. have filed papers R-1 photo copy of the proposal  form for issuance of the insurance policy, R-2 photo copy of the policy document, R-3 photo copy of the debit application form, R-4 photo copy of the transaction detail of the company and R-5 photo copy of reply given to the complainant by the insurance co.
7. On careful perusal of the papers produced by both the parties it appears that complainant has admitted in the complaint petition  itself that he issued cheque in the name of Insurance Co. Itself hence this fact alone shows that he was well aware about the insurance policy and company in whose name cheque was issue. On perusal of the photo copy of the proposal form and other papers it appears that all have been dully signed by the complainant and his major son who have put their signatures in English. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant and his son were illiterate person and they were not able to read the contents of the proposal form and other papers. Another important fact is to be noted here that policy paper was issued on 25.01.2013 and on that very day the son of the complainant was major whose birth date has been mentioned 26.01.1980 in this way on that very day he was about 23 years old. Cause of action of this case arised for the first time on 25.03.2013 and later on when policy paper was dispatched i.e. on 01.04.2013 but inspite of cooling period of 15 days no objection was raised by the complainant or his son. Therefore, it is apparent that the papers submitted by the complainant are showing that for the first time by legal notice dt. 21.11.2017 objection on the policy has been raised after more than 3 years period from the date  related to cause of action of the case. Therefore, it is very much clear that complaint is hopelessly time barred which has been filed on 27.01.2018 for about 4 years after the cause of action. No receipt regarding the deposit of any amount with the O.Ps. has been brought on record to show that which of the amount has been deposited. Since the insured himself is a major person hence it was expected from him to bring the case but he has not come before this Commission with any grievance.
8.  In light of above discussion we are of the view that this case must fail on the ground that it is hopelessly time barred, it has not been filed by the insured person whose interest is being affected

by the policy concerned, no paper regarding deposit of amount claimed has been brought on record and there is no evidence regarding cheating with the complainant or with his son. Hence accordingly both the points are being decided against the complainant and in favour of the O.Ps.

9.  Hence this case is being dismissed with cost.