BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 19^th DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund him a sum of Rs.30,000/- received as first premium and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of litigation, inconvenience and harassment caused to him.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant is a customer of ICICI Bank.  On 07^th February 2015, he visited the branch of ICICI Bank where one Mr.Suresh and Mr.Sukumar, who were on duty, met him and asked him to take a insurance policy in his name.  They also gave him a hard copy of estimated policy plan (ICICI Pru Guaranteed Wealth Protector) printed with his name with annual premium of Rs.25,000/-.  The complainant filled up the required information and also a receipt for withdrawing a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his savings bank account with ICICI Bank, Rajcuri Garden, New Delhi, towards payment of the first premium.  The above said Mr.Suresh obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers stating that the same can be used by them in case if there is any mistake in the form already filled up.  The complainant asked the said officer to fill up the details of his previous policies together with policy number in the policy proposal and gave them the photocopies of the same.  The complainant did not receive the first premium receipt (FPR) from the OP even after 4 to 5 visits to the branch.  However, in the first week of March 2015 when he visited the Chikpet Branch of ICICI, the above said Mr.Suresh handed over him the policy bond and on verifying the same, he found that his name was written wrongly as well as the name of his wife.  Instead of Rs.25,000/- the first premium was Rs.30,000/- and the same was drawn from his account without his permission by making use of empty forms on which the signatures were obtained by the said Suresh.  The said policy was issued at the Chikpet Branch instead to the local address of complainant at Bangalore.

The complainant returned the said policy to said Suresh asking him to issue a fresh policy by causing necessary corrections in his name as well as in the name of his wife.  The said Suresh accepted the request of the complainant and did some paper work and obtained the signatures of the complainant together with identity proof again and promised him that he will get a fresh policy within 10 to 15 days.  The said Suresh and Sukumar also noted the corrections requested by the complainant in their personal diaries also.  Even after 25 days the complainant did not receive the status of the policy bond and finally on 25^th March 2015 both Mr.Suresh and Sukumar visited his office at Saint Marks Road, near Richmond Circle, Bangalore and promised him to deliver the fresh policy bond prior to 10^th April 2015.  However, the complainant did not receive the fresh policy within that time.  On 24^th April 2014, when the complainant was preferring to go to Delhi he received a call from Suresh stating that his fresh policy bond has been received by them and asked him to collect the same by coming over to their branch.  The complainant asked them to open the policy and verify as to all the necessary corrections have been made or not and stated the he would collect the policy after he returns from Delhi.  On 08^th May 2015 the complainant visited the branch and on verification of the newly issued policy, he again found that, his wife’s name has been wrongly written.  Therefore, the complainant requested the said Mr.Suresh to cancel the said policy and refund him the premium amount.  On 09^th May 2015, the complainant also sent an e-mail for cancellation of the said policy and requested for refund of the premium amount.  Since, the OP did not respond to his request he was compelled to approach the Forum with this complaint.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to refund him the first premium amount of Rs.30,000/- drawn from his S.B account together with a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards inconvenience, harassment meted to him and also towards litigation expenses.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP though entered their appearance through their advocate however failed to file their version despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  Thereafter, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit in lieu of oral evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.

4. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, sworn testimony of the complainant and the documents relied upon by him.

5. Though OP Bank appeared through their advocate but failed to contest the complaint by filing their version.  For the reasons best known to them, the OP Bank has failed to contest the complaint and denied the allegations made against them.  We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant.  The evidence led-in by the complainant stands unchallenged.

6. The perusal of the material placed on record goes to show that, though the complainant requested for a policy with premium of Rs.25,000/-.  The OPs without proper authority have issued a policy with a premium of Rs.30,000/- by making use of certain blank printed forms on which the signature of the complainant was obtained.  Though the complainant was ready to accept the policy with premium amount of Rs.30,000/- but he could not do so because neither his name nor his wife’s name were properly and correctly mentioned in the policy.  Therefore, he has requested the concerned in the OP Bank to get him a new policy by correctly mentioning his name as well as the name of his wife.  However, what we make out that even in the fresh policy issued, the wife name of complainant was not correctly spelt.  Therefore, the complainant was justified in refusing to receive the newly issued policy also.

7. We don’t understand what made the OP to commit serious mistake in mentioning the name as well as the correct name of wife of the complainant in the policy.  Naturally, the complainant or his wife would not be able to enforce the policy after maturity because of the serious mistake in their name occurring in the policy.  We don’t understand what made the OP Bank to commit such silly mistakes while issuing the policy.  This conduct of OP certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is not obliged to receive a insurance policy in which his name and name of his wife is not correctly and properly mentioned.  The OP Bank which has failed to issue a proper policy in the name of the complainant as per his request is liable to refund the premium amount without any further delay.  Despite 2 e-mails by the complainant the OP has failed to respond to the same.  This must have caused the complainant great inconvenience and hardship which also amounts to grave deficiency.  Therefore, OP apart from refunding the premium amount shall have to be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency in service apart from litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.       

          8. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, in default they shall pay the said amount together with interest @ 9% p.a till the date of realization.

The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 19^th day of March 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 10.12.2015.

1. Sri. Mukesh Kumar.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party - Nil

Documents produced by the OP - nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*