Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/217/2013

ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THE MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.J. RAVI GUNASEELAN - Opp.Party(s)

ELVEERA RAVINDRAN

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

        BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                                  PRESIDENT

                     R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                 MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.217/2013

(Against order in CC.NO.380/2008 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE  26^th DAY OF APRIL 2022       

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager

Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadya Marg                         M/s. S.S.Sajeev Kesan

Opp. Race Course, Mahalakshmi                                          Counsel for

Mumbai – 400 034                                             Appellant / 2^nd Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

1.       V.J.Ravi Gunaseelan                                  M/s.B. Padma Mangayarkarasi

          1624, TNHB Colony                                                 Counsel for

          Velachery, Chennai – 42                          1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       ABN Amro Bank

          Rep. by Manager

          18, Haddows Road                                             Served called absent

          Chennai – 600 006                                2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2^nd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.16.5.2012 in CC.No.380/2008.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and the 1^st Respondent and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.16.5.2012 in CC.No.380/2008 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South), by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally  to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission in brief is as follows:

           The complainant had availed credit card facility from the 1^st opposite party in card No.5415382329903132.  He was using the said credit card from May 2007 onwards.  In such a situation, in the month of April 2007 the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant to take a Family Mediclaim Policy stating that it would cover complainant and his family members like wife, children and complainant’s parents.  The complainant shown his willingness to join in the family mediclaim policy and sought for the terms and conditions, and other details governing the said policy.  However the official who was present at that time stated that complainant will be served with the policy documents and conditions governing the policy among other receipts on payment of his first instalment towards the said policy.  The 1^st opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.7064/- from his credit card using his credit limit on 4.5.2007.  The entire EMIs towards the said insurance policy was taken in advance by the 1^st opposite party alongwith 1% interest on 22.6.2007 itself and they used to send him monthly statements showing the EMIs of Rs.431/- towards the deduction of premium of the said policy.  Immediately on receipt of the statement of account for the month for June 2007 the complainant was waiting for his policy documents from the 1^st opposite party.  However he was not provided with the policy documents.  Thereafter the 2^nd instalment was also paid. 

          While so, when the policy was in force, the complainant met with an accident on 9.8.2007, and had sustained severe injuries on head, hand and leg besides injuries on body.  The complainant was taken to nearby private hospital, where they demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited for treatment or to produce insurance policy documents.  Since the complainant had no policy papers   he was admitted in Government Hospital, Central, Chennai where he took treatment for 21 days and thereafter he also took treatment in a private Hospital, spending more than Rs.270000/-.  However the complainant on 30.11.2007 had received a letter dt.13.11.2007 from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the policy was cancelled at his request. The cancellation letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party put him to shock and surprise.  Till the receipt of the cancellation letter,  the 1^st opposite party had not informed him at any point of time that the 2^nd opposite party is the insurer.  Therefore he was put in dark.  The complainant had not requested any one of the opposite parties to cancel the said mediclaim policy either in writing or orally, therefore the cancellation of the policy by the 2^nd opposite party is against law.  Therefore, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 23.6.2008 claiming Rs.5 lakhs towards already collected premiums, compensation etc.,  but there was no reply from them.  Hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation. 

 

3.       The 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party though served, remained exparte before the District Commission.

 

4.       The 2^nd opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant as follows :

          Only on the proposal made by the complainant, this opposite party issued a policy of insurance covering the period from 5.5.2007 to 4.5.2008.  The annual premium was Rs.7064/-.  The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the monthly EMI for 18 instalments to be paid by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, and the same does not concern this opposite party.  Even according to the version of the complainant he had contacted only the 1^st opposite party and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.   This opposite party is not aware of the allegations with regard to the alleged road accident on 9.8.2007 and that the complainant was hospitalised and the expenses incurred thereof.  This opposite party had sent all the policy documents immediately on the issue of the policy.  The complainant had never contacted this opposite party.  Immediately on intimation for cancellation received on 6.11.2007 this opposite party immediately cancelled the policy on 6.11.2007, and the same was intimated to the complainant on 13.11.2007 itself.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part, thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

 5.      In order to prove the claim on the side of the complainant, alongwith proof affidavit 16 documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A16, and on the side of the 2^nd opposite party one document was fled, which was marked as Ex.B1.  The 1^st  opposite party remained absent before the District Commission.

 

6.       The District Commission after analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party has not produced any proof to show that the complainant had made a request to cancel the policy.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, had allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost.

 

7.       Before this commission the 1^st Respondent/ complainant appeared through representative.  Appellant/2^nd opposite party appeared through counsel.  The 2^nd Respondent / 1^st opposite party though served, remained absent before this commission also. 

 

8.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party had cancelled the policy only based on the request of the complainant himself, and had intimated about the cancellation vide letter dt.13.11.2007.  Having received the said letter, the complainant had not raised any protest, and is now coming with false claims, which ought not to have been allowed.  The District Commission failed to note that at no point of time the opposite party was put on notice by the complainant party regarding the non receipt of the policy documents.  The insurance company discharged their duty well, and there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Thus prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

 

9.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant would submit that at no point of time, he had made a request for cancellation of policy.  When the policy was in force, he met with an accident on 9.8.2007.   He had spent almost Rs.270000/- towards his treatment and on 20.10.2007 he had sent a complaint to the 1^st opposite party, for which there was no reply from them.  All of a sudden on 30.11.2007 he had received a letter dt.13.11.2007 stating that his policy was cancelled at his request.  Actually the 1^st opposite party bank has no connection with the complainant.  The complainant also had not given any message orally or in writing to the bank.  On 15.12.2007 the 1^st opposite party had sent information through e-mail stating that they are liasioning with ICICI Lombard for the family policy papers and will update shortly.  Though a series of e-mails have been sent to the 1^st opposite party, no fruitful reply was received.  From all these events it would be evident that ABN Amro bank/ 2^nd opposite party had failed to discharge its duty.  Even after all the queries, no policy papers have been sent, which shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, and thus prays for dismissal of the appeal. 

 

10.     Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully perused the materials.  It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the policy was cancelled only at the request of the complainant. 

          But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that they have never opted for cancellation. 

 

11.     On a careful perusal of the documents, it is seen that though the Appellant/ 2^nd opposite party had written a letter stating that the policy had been cancelled at the request of the complainant as seen under Ex.A3 dt.30.11.2007, no material proof had been placed before us by either of the opposite parties, to show that the complainant had actually requested for cancellation.  Moreover as seen from the account statement furnished by the 1^st opposite party/ABN Amro Bank, it is evident that the EMI amount towards the Family 1^st policy had been regularly debited from the credit card account of the complainant from viz. 3.12.2008, 2.1.2008, 2.2.2008, 2.3.2008, 2.4.2008, 2.5.2008, 2.6.2008 and 2.7.2008, by the 1^st opposite party as seen from Ex.A1 series.   The 1^st opposite party, who has issued the credit card, and debited the premium from the complainant’s account, had conveniently remained absent.  In the absence of any document to prove that the complainant had opted for cancellation, the only presumption that could be arrived by this commission is that the policy had been cancelled arbitrarily by the 2^nd opposite party, without any request by the complainant. The act of the opposite parties makes this commission to presume that the opposite parties are canvassing the gullible public to apply for a policy, and make them to pay the premium out their credit card, and subsequently declaring that the policy had been cancelled without the consent of the consumer,   only with an intention to extract money from them, and make them liable to pay the premium amount alongwith interest and finally cheating them without even furnishing the policy copy, thus enriching themselves unduly. The best part is that the complainant had neither received the policy copy nor requested for cancellation, but was under the presumption that there is a policy alive with these opposite parties.  Therefore, undoubtedly the service of the opposite parties reflect utter negligece.  Moreover considering the act of the opposite parties, the compensation awarded at Rs.50000/- cannot be considered as heavy.   Therefore, looking at any angle, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission, and the same is confirmed.  

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CC.No.380/2008 dt.16.5.2012.   There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

 

  R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                       R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT