DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/108/2021

Date of Institution : 30.04.2021

Date of Decision : 10.02.2022

Sukhpreet Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of House No. B-II/1690, Shakti Nagar, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala Mob. 95016-01631. …Complainant

Versus

1. The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Premji Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathi Marg, Prabhdevi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025 through its Authorized Signatory.

2. The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Branch Office Pacca College Road, Old Bus Stand Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019

Present: Sh. HS Grewal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Sukhpreet Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 against The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Mumbai and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is hold of Saving Bank with ICICI Bank, Branch Barnala having account No. 051801505525. In the month of January 2016 the complainant visited the bank and Sales Manager of the bank told the complainant about ICICI Pru Cash Advantage Policy and allured the complainant that the same will yield good return to the complainant. On his words the complainant purchased the said policy on 13.1.2016 and paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the said policy and assured the complainant that the policy will be issued to him and also intimate to the complainant regarding the renewal of the said policy. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the bank and asked regarding the issuance of policy. But the complainant was told that the policy was issued to him vide policy No. 19705892. The policy documents were also not issued to the complainant against which the complainant made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite parties.

3. It is further alleged that in the last week of March 2021 the complainant visited the bank and inquired about the policy documents but he shocked to see that his policy has been lapsed. The complainant was never intimated regarding the same. The complainant requested the opposite parties to issue the policy documents and to restart the policy but they flatly refused. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to issue the policy documents to the complainant or to restore the policy of the complainant without late.   

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties filed written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has raised specific allegations regarding features of policy which was issued in January 2016, so the cause of action arose at the time of issuance of policy or before the end of Free Look Period and at the time when Proposer received the policy documents i.e. on 25.1.2016 or when the policy lapsed on 23.1.2017. But he filed the present complaint in May 2021 after a period of 5 years 5 months from the policy issuance which is much beyond the statutory limitation period of two years under Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further, this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the present complaint. Further, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Further, terms and conditions of the insurance policy are binding upon both the parties. The policy was issued to the complainant as per duly filled on line application form alongwith signed customer declaration form received by the opposite parties. The opposite parties sent the policy documents on the registered email ID shanky8697@gmail.com of the complainant on 25.1.2016 and also sent hard copy of the same on 25.1.2016 through EM courier. The complainant himself opted to receive the policy documents vide email in application form. The complainant did not raised any disute regarding non receipt of policy documents till the filing of this complaint. The complainant never approached the opposite parties for non receipt of policy documents. In the policy, the complainant proposed the policy for coverage term of 15 years and was required to pay the premium of Rs. 48,200/- on yearly basis for 5 years. But the complainant paid only one premium till date and failed to pay the remaining premiums and due to non payment of required premium amount the policy was lapsed on 23.1.2017. Further, the complainant did not approach the company for revival of policy within a period of 2 years from the date of unpaid premium and as per terms and conditions his policy got foreclosed on 23.1.2019 and nothing is payable on foreclosure. The complainant would have paid at least two years premiums only then he would have been eligible for the surrender value. So he is not entitled for any amount in the policy and is also not entitled for revival of the policy. Further, the complainant failed to approach the opposite parties within free look period of 15/30 days from the day customer received the policy as in these days he can cancel his policy. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The opposite parties also sent SMSs on the complainant mobile No. 95016-01631 for free look period  payment of premium and renewal of policy but even then complainant failed to renew the policy.

5. On merits, it is submitted that the opposite parties company received duly filled application and singed CDF and ECS and on the basis of these documents they issued the policy to the complainant on 25.1.2016 through email and through courier. The complainant retained the policy documents and not approached the opposite parties for cancellation of policy during the free look period. It is further alleged that due to non payment of second premium the policy was lapsed on 23.1.2017. The company also sent revival letter on 29.10.2018 but the complainant failed to do so. Further, the opposite parties reiterate the submissions as mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat. However, lastly the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present compliant with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence copy of policy Ex.OPs-1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OPs-2, copies of reminder emails Ex.OPs-3 and Ex.OPs-4, copy of letter dated 29.10.2018 Ex.OPs-5, copy of termination letter Ex.OPs-6, affidavit of Amit Aggarwal Ex.OPs-7 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties. 

9. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that the complainant has agreed to purchase the above said policy on 13.1.2016 and the policy was issued on 23.1.2016. This fact is admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their written version and also mentioned in their written version that the policy was dispatched on 25.1.2016 through email and courier. The opposite parties specifically mentioned in their written version that the SMSs were also sent on the mobile No. 95016-01631 time to time for renewal of the policy but complainant never bothered. The complainant has not filed the rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The complainant also failed to rebut the facts mentioned in the written version of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 

10. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that the complainant purchased the alleged policy in the year 2016 and the complainant approached the opposite parties in the last week of March 2021 for inquiring the policy documents. The policy was lapsed in the year 2017 but complainant neither approached the opposite parties nor submitted any request for renewal of the same. The complainant also at fault as the complainant approached the opposite parties after a period of more than 5 years. The opposite parties taken the specific legal objection that the complainant is barred by the limitation and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. In this way, the present complaint is barred by limitation. 

11. In view of the above discussion, the complainant failed to prove his case and also filed the same beyond limitation, therefore the present complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        10th Day of February 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member