Date of Filing: 25.05.2015 Date of Final Order: 29.01.2016
On proper study of the complaint as filed by Sri Swapan Kr. Chakraborty U/S 12 of C.P. Act against ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, it reveals that the Complainant obtained one Premier Life Pension Policy being No.11571857 on 20-03-2009 launched by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company through the Branch Manager, Cooch Behar Branch (here in after O.P. No. 3). The yearly premium of the said policy was Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant paid first two premiums of Rs.1,00,000/-& 1,00,000/- for the period (2009-2010) & (2010-2011) through the O.P. No. 3 by two cheques under valid receipts. At the time of depositing 3rd premium for the period (2011-2012) went to the office of the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. and came to know that the said Branch office of the Opposite Party Company has closed permanently from the month of March 2011. Finding no other alternative the Complainant contacted with the O.P. No. 3 and informed the matter to the Siliguri Office over Telephone and the Complainant was advised to make payment of 3rd premium at Alipurduar Branch. Thus, as per instruction of Siliguri Office the Complainant deposited 3rd premium of Rs.1,00000/- to the Branch Manager of Alipurduar Branch i.e. the O.P. No.3 on 24.04.2011 and the O.P. issued valid money receipt in favour the Complainant vide receipt No. LK 24521141. Thereafter in the year 2012, the complainant by facing financial problem intending to surrender the said policy went to the O.P. No. 1 and surprisingly came to know from the account statement that the 3rd premium of said policy was not paid by the complainant, valued Rs.1,00,000/- though the valid money receipt of the third premium is lying with the Complainant. Then the complainant made several contact with the O.P. No.1 but failed to receive any satisfactory reply also made contact with the O.P. No. 2 over telephone. Thereafter the Complainant filed a written complaint on 24.09.2014 to the O.P. No.1 who after receiving the letter sent a mail with an advice to meet Mr. Sayantan Misra, the O.P. No. 3. The Complainant then filed a complaint before the O.P. No. 3 who advised to make further payment of Rs. 17,000/- and the Complainant deposited the amount to the O.P. 3 but all efforts were in vain. After that the Complainant again received a mail from the Opposite Party Company with an advice that the Complainant can take action against the O.P. No. 3 for recovering of Rs. 17,000/- but the Company is not liable for theft of Rs 1,00,000/- i.e. the 3rd premium as the payment was made in cash. Thereafter the Complainant received another mail from the O.Ps which reveals that the Complainant have to pay further Rs. 67,000/- if he wanted to get back the surrender value based on Rs. 3,00,000/-. In this way the Opposite Parties harassed the Complainant by giving false assurance but no good result yet come out. By not getting any satisfactory reply from their end and also finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the present case before this Forum seeking redress and relief as incorporated in the Prayer portion of the complaint.
In the case in hand, after receiving the notice from this Forum the Opposite Parties contested the case through Ld. Agent by filing W/V contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable before this Forum also the Complainant has no locus Standi to file the present case against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties also averred that the O.Ps admitted the fact of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- to Alipurduar branch but could not take into account the same as premium of the concerned policy as the same had been deposited after expiry of stipulated date of 20.03.2015. The petitioner deposited the premium on 24.04.2015 when the said policy gone to lapse though considering the matter sympathetically the Complainant was requested to deposit Rs. 67,000/-only for late and the said lapsed policy vide their letter date4d 27.03.2015 and further asked tom pay Rs. 50,000 in lieu of Rs. 67,000/- by March 2015 but the Complainant did not comply the same. Moreover, depositing of Rs. 17,000/- to S. Misra is a matter of proof and the Company has no liability for the same as no such amount has been credited against the concerned policy for which the company shall not take any liability for the same.
Putting all this, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with cost. After filing W/V the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps did not appear before this Forum also did not file any Evidence of the O.Ps or Written Argument for which the case is heard in absence of the Opposite parties.
In the light of contentions made available in the complaint and in the W/V the following points necessarily come before this Forum for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully along with Evidence and W/Ar. filed by the Ld. Agent of the Complainant also perused the entire materials on record and heard the Ex-parte argument as advanced by the ld. Agent of the Complainant, as after filing W/V, the O.Ps did not come forward before this Forum on the date fixed also did not file Evidence or W/Ar.
Point No. 1.
Undisputedly, the present complainant entered into a policy of the O.Ps ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. He deposited the premium; also the O.Ps issued a Certificate of Policy in favour of the complainant being No. 11571857. On a meticulous reading of the materials made available before us and in the light of the status of the parties as to their relationship, we are of the clear view that the Complainant is consumer of the O.Ps in terms of the provision of Sec2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
It appears that the O.P. Company carried on its business through its Branch Office, situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainant has filed this case for Rs. 4,15,000/- i.e. within the prescribed limit for which there is no hesitation to say that this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
The point of dispute rests on the fact of payment of the 3rd premium of the year 2011 dated 24.04.2011. In spite of depositing the premium in due time by the Complainant that was not recorded in the account statement of the Complainant. It is also the case of the Complainant that at the time of surrender the said policy in the year 2012 he came to know that the said premium has not been deposited to the O.ps office/ in his account as the Complainant paid the same in cash and as a result the policy lapsed.
On giving a close look to the materials as existing in the record, it would be seen that the complainant has deposited annual premium of Rs.1,00000/- each for the year 2009, 2010 & 2011 after commencement of the policies in the year 2009. The proof of the cover page of the policies and the receipts of the deposit issued from the end of the O.Ps prove that the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.3,00000/- and the branch office of the O.Ps issued proper receipts against the deposits of premium amount. It is also incidentally clear that the mode of payment is undisputed as in nowhere in the policy we find that the mode of payment is only cash. The O.Ps in their W/V admitted the payment of the 1st & 2nd premiums also deposit of Rs.10,000/- on 24/04/2015 then it is fact that the policies are in motion.
The O.Ps in their W/V stated that the Branch Manager of Alipurduar received of Rs. 1,00000/- but as the deposit was made in cash that has been not considered as premium. The O.Ps also taken plea that the 3rd premium has been deposited in cash at Alipurduar branch on 24.04.2015 i.e. after expiry of stipulated date of 20.03.2015 when the policy already lapsed.
Annexure “B” the Premium receipt, reveals that the Complainant deposited 3rd premium of Rs. 1,00000/- on 24.04.2011 for which the plea as taken by the O.Ps is totally vague and not sustainable in the eye of law. The said receipt also valid one when the receipt has been made in the pad with proper logo of the Opposite Party Company.
Further, the disputed amount was received by the O.P. No3 at their Alipurduar branch as because the Cooch Behar Branch was remain closed since the month of March 2011 and at the time of surrender the policy he came to know that the 3rd premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- has not been credited against his policy that is clearly a deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. It is thus held that as a consumer the present complainant did not get proper service from the O.Ps. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that while the agent appointed by the O.Ps was working for service and gain for the O.Ps and for himself, it was the duty of the O.Ps to take legal action against its agent. But the O.Ps without doing so advised complainant to take action. More so, it is well known principal of law that act of agent is act of principal. The O.P. No. 3 acted as an Agent of the Opposite Party Company for which the Opposite Party Company cannot evade their liability for the negligent act of the O.P. No. 3 and the plea as taken by the O.Ps is not tenable in the eye of law.
In the present case the O.P. No.1, The Manager, ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd., submitted W/V on 28/09/2015.
Thereafter, on 10/12/2015 the O.P. No.1 – 3 again submitted another W/V with copy of the some documents.
But thereafter they backed out from the case without appearing before this Forum and ultimately the case was heard in Ex-parte.
As the O.P. No.1 – 3 have not been contesting, the case the W/V submitted by them is not material in this case.
However, we think point raised in the said W/V submitted by them is to be discussed to dispose off the case in merit.
We find that the said W/V (which is actually pleading) the O.P. No.1 to 3 cited some rulings just pointing out Head Notes and without submitting the original rulings, and this Forum is unable to examine whether the facts of the said cases are at all relevant with this case or not.
We find that the O.Ps raised a plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case as this case relates to Unit Linked Policy for speculative gain and speculative investment matter and cited a judgement of Case No.96 of 2011 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, where in it was observed that the complaint in respect of a claim under Unit Linked Policy Insurance Policy is not maintainable.
In his reply in this context, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted copy of the judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission in RP 3842/2012 where the Complainant took policy from the O.P. No.1 under LIC Health Plus with Linked Insurance plan (Table No.901) as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. Thereafter, the Complainant has undergone some surgery and expended Rs.2,54,306/- and claimed said amount from the O.Ps but the O.Ps rejected the said claim. Then the Complainant took shelter of D.C.D.R. Forum and his prayer was allowed by directing the O.Ps to pay Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @9% P.A.
But on Appeal, said order was set aside by Hon’ble State Commission.
However, ultimately Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to confirm the order of the Ld. District Forum.
So, in view of the order passed by Hon’ble National Commission it cannot be said that the case relates to Unit Link Policy is not maintainable.
We find that the O.P. No.1 to 3 raised another plea that receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by their staff of Alipurduar Office is forged and fake document and when serious question of forgery or fraud is alleged, it is desirable the petitioner should be directed to take shelter of Civil Court and in this context they cited rulings reported in II(1994) CPJ 476, 1994 (I) CPR 396 and II(2012) CPJ 151 NC).
But we find that in the present case the O.P. No.1 to 3 made no attempt to prove their case that the receipt dated 24/04/2011 is fake one or forged document.
So, this rulings are not applicable in this case.
In this context, Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted copy of judgement passed in FA/349/2014 by Hon’ble National Commission where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to observe that in absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, having been produced by the O.P. No.2 by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the documents aforesaid were forged and fabricated.
In this respect, Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted copy of another judgement passed in FA/278/2011 by Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal where regarding some documents it was alleged that those document including the Seal of the Foundation were fake. But Hon’ble State Commission pleased to hold that there is no paper to show that any case was filed before any Court regarding alleged fake or forged document.
Evidently, in the present case there is nothing to show that any case was filed against the said staff of the O.Ps.
During hearing of argument Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted that due to some technical defect the claim of the Complainant cannot be rejected.
In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in 2014(3) CPR 236 (NC) where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide protection of consumers and their claims cannot be defected on technical ground.
At the end of his argument The Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit with documents. He was not cross examined by the O.Ps. So, the Complainant has been able to prove his case in Ex-parte.
In this context he cited a ruling reported IV(2006) CPJ 2013(NC) where in Consumer Complaint Case, the Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence. The O.Ps neither filed any affidavit nor examined him.
Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that in absence of any counter affidavit, allegation of the Complainant remained uncontroverted and stands proof.
Therefore, relying upon the Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant and in light of the discussion made here in before and the materials to its entirety made available on record, we are convinced to hold that the complainant deposited 3rd premium on 24-04-2011 and the agent of O.P issued proper receipt when the policy was in motion. The complaint as a bonafide policy holder cannot be deprived of his claim for the negligent act of the O.Ps. When the policies and the other receipts are admitted there is no question to deny the deposit of 3rd premium.
In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the act and conduct of the O.Ps to our estimation must be termed deficiency in service that come within the purview of deficiency in service and accordingly that comes within the ambit of section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also the business practice of the O.Ps certainly termed as unfair trade practice.
All the questions are answered in the affirmative. Consequently, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in Ex- parte with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The aforesaid Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the complainant, jointly and/or severally Rs.3,00,000/- as the deposited amount along with interest from the date of deposit as per norms of the policy.
The O.Ps are further directed to compensate with a sum of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. The O.Ps must have complied with the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of this order jointly and/or severally in default the Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.50/- for each days delay by depositing the same to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, till realization of the entire ordered amount.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
