State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arun Lal vs Icici on 7 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 435 of 2012 Date of Institution : 28.12.2012 Date of Decision : 07.03.2013 Prof. Arun K Lall, House No.653, Punjab Engineering College Campus, Sector-12, Chandigarh 160012. Phone No.2745345(R), Email: [email protected]. Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. Financial/Insurance Advisor, M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited., First Floor, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160017. Email: [email protected], Email: [email protected]. 2. Unit Manager, M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.70, Top Floor, Phase 9, Mohali, (Pb.). Email: [email protected]. .Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Prof. Arun K. Lall, appellant in person. Sh. S. R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. First Appeal No. : 03 of 2013 Date of Institution : 04.01.2013 Date of Decision : 07.03.2013 1. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai 400025. 2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160017. 3. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, CO No.70, Top Floor, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab. Appellants/Opposite Parties. Versus Prof. Arun K Lall, R/o House No.653, Punjab Engineering College Campus, Sector-12, Chandigarh 160 012. .Respondent/Complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. S. R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.
Prof. Arun K. Lall, respondent in person.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.435 of 2012 filed by the appellant/complainant and 03 of 2013 filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, against the common order dated 26.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.572 of 2011, filed by complainant, qua the Opposite Parties, and directed them as under: -
12. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper services and having indulged in unfair trade practice by not adhering to the mandated IRDA Guidelines while issuing different policies to the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are, directed, to:-
[a] To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[b] To release Rs.2,00,000/-
illegally retained by the Opposite Parties, along with interest @9% p.a. since its deposit, till it is paid;
13. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of this order, till it is paid.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant, in the year 2007, had subscribed for three different policies by filling up the proposal forms. It was stated that on the advice of the agents of the Opposite Parties, Mr. Atul Vij and Mr. Amit Rai, who were having the company I.D. cards to prove their identity and status in the organization, preferred to invest Rs.3 Lacs by subscribing for three insurance policies in the name Life Stage RP (2 Nos) and one Life Stage Pension. It was further stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, in total, and the policies were issued in his name on 4/9/2007, 22/9/2007 and 31/12/2007 respectively. It was further stated that, as per the assurances of the Opposite Parties, the said insurance policies were to fetch 20-25% returns. It was further stated that when the complainant did not find anything concrete, he contacted the agents, and enquired about the status of the policies. It was further stated that the complainant received an e-mail dated 13/01/08, whereby a brief detail of the high returns to the tune of 20-25%, on the fund was provided to him. It was further stated that the complainant thereafter, continuously remained in touch with the Agents, reminding them, about the commitment and also registering his grievance. It was further stated that on not getting a proper response, from that end, and finally feeling disgusted, the complainant once again mentioned that no complete information was forthcoming as mentioned in Appendix-VII dated 10/8/2009. It was further stated that the complainant was advised that in order to maintain the quantum of profit, he must pay the premium amount due against him, as the policies were nearing renewal for the 2nd premium and was also advised to cancel one of the policies, so as to meet the requirements of fresh policy, as he had expressed difficulty in arranging money. It was further stated that the Complainant did not wish to continue with the different policies, to which he had subscribed, on the advice of the Opposite Parties, but under compelling circumstances, he preferred to revive the same. It was further stated that even after completing all the formalities for reviving these policies, no response was forthcoming from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, to pay back the amount deposited by him with maximum penalty permissible under the rules/provisions, and to stop the illegal activities of collecting money by raising false commitments.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, stated that the complaint being an absolute abuse of law and judicial process, and being false, frivolous and vexatious deserved to be dismissed. It was further stated that the District Forum was not having any jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, as the allegations, made therein, were required to be tried by a Civil/Criminal court, as detailed evidence, was thus required to be led. It was further stated that all the issues raised in the complaint were due to the complainants own omissions and commissions. It was further stated that the subject policies were foreclosed and, thus, there was no cause of action qua the Opposite Parties, in this regard. It was further stated that the complainant defaulted in making payment of regular premiums, and as such, he disqualified himself, due to the default on account of premium amount. It was further stated that the complainant being a well educated person, it was not expected of him to either sign blank documents or could be carried away by any amount of misrepresentation. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also reproduced Clause 4.1 for the payment of premium and Clauses 10 and 2.2 dealing with the qualification of the complainant to claim any amount towards these policies only on completion of three policy years for which a full premium amount was paid. It was further stated that under the surrender clause as mentioned in clause 2.2 of the policy document, the surrender charges towards different policy years were mentioned. It was further stated that the first policy No.06121385 was in force, whereas Policy No.06174600 was foreclosed and Policy No.07219597 was in a paid up status. It was further stated that the policy certificate alongwith policy documents, in original, were dispatched to the Complainant and the same was duly received by him. It was further stated that the investments in the units were subject to market and other risks and, thus, there could not be any assurance, with regard to the objective of any of the funds, that they might achieve. It was further stated that the document (Appendix-IV) of the complaint was not an authorized communication issued by the Company as it did not bear the companys seal or name of an authorized signatory. It was further stated that the Company had received a Standard Benefit Illustration (SBI) signed by the Complainant, which demonstrated/illustrate the returns under the Policy. Thus, the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and the market situation. It was further stated that there was no guarantee of 20-25% returns, on the investment. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as sated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, both the complainant as well as the Opposite Parties, filed the instant appeals.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/ Opposite Parties, the appellant/complainant in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. Before going into the merits of the case, we wish to decide the application, moved by the applicants/appellants/ Opposite Parties, seeking permission to place, on record, copies of two Standard Benefit Illustrations dated 29.08.2007, Premium Paid Certificate for the year 2010-2011, Policy revival intimation letter, applications for refund Switch with respect to Policies No.06121385 06174600 and Personal Health Declaration Form dated 27.07.2010, by way of additional evidence, which according to them, are essential for the just decision of the case.
9. On the other hand, the complainant opposed the application, on the ground, that the documents sought to be placed, on record, could not be admitted into evidence, at the appellate stage.
10. From the perusal of these documents, it is apparent that the same were in possession of the applicants/ appellants/Opposite Parties, during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum. However, the Counsel for the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties, has not been able to show any plausible cause, as to why, these documents, were not placed before the District Forum. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted into evidence, now at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the application, for additional evidence, is dismissed.
11. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the Opposite Parties, received three duly filled in and signed proposal forms from the complainant for seeking insurance policies (Annexure A2 Colly). It was further submitted that the complainant also signed a Standard Benefit Illustration Forum alongwith the proposal form and accordingly, the Opposite Parties, issued the policies. He further submitted that as per Clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interest) Regulations 2002, the Opposite Parties, sent all the policy documents accompanied by the forwarding letter wherein it was categorically mentioned that if the policyholder was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policies, he/she could return the same, within the free-look period of 15 days, but the complainant never availed of the said free-look period. He further submitted that, in the proposal form ,as well as in the introductory paragraph of the policy documents, it was categorically mentioned that In Unit Linked Insurance Policies (ULIPs), the investment risk in the investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. He further submitted that after paying the first premium, the complainant did not pay the regular premium and the policy bearing No.06121385 was foreclosed on 06.09.2010, which was subsequently revived by the complainant, on payment of Rs.2 Lacs. He further submitted that the other two policies, bearing Nos.06174600 and 07219597 were foreclosed on 22.09.2010 and 31.12.2010 respectively, due to non payment of premium, and the foreclosure amounts were sent to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policies. He further submitted that the compensation as also the interest, on failure to comply with the impugned order, within the stipulated period, was also on the higher side. He further submitted that the complainant illegally filed the complainant alleging mis-selling of Policies and mis-representation on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the District Forum without appreciating the facts, erred in allowing the complaint, which was liable to be dismissed.
12. On the contrary, the appellant/complainant, who appeared in person, in his appeal bearing No.435/2012, submitted that while allowing his complaint, the District Forum overlooked Appendix IV, placed, on its record, wherein the regular/permanent employee of the Opposite Parties, assured 20-25% returns with two Unique Portfolio strategies. He further submitted that this document (Appendix IX) was signed by the regular/permanent employee of the Opposite Parties, and not by their agent, as observed by the District Forum, in its order and, as such, he was entitled to the refund of the entire premium amount of Rs.3 Lacs, which the Opposite Parties, wrongly forfeited. He further submitted that since the Opposite Parties, did not give any information, regarding the assured returns, as promised and therefore, he did not pay the subsequent premiums and requested for refund of the deposited amount, which he paid as premium. He further submitted that since, the District Forum had rightly held unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is definitely entitled for the refund of Rs.3 Lacs, paid by him, to the Opposite Parties, towards premium of all the three policies. He, therefore, prayed that his appeal be accepted and the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties, be dismissed.
13. So far as the first issue, with regard to the misrepresentation, by selling the policies, in question, on the part of employee of the Opposite Parties, is concerned, a bare perusal of Appendix IV, on record, of the District Forums file, duly signed by an employee of the Opposite Parties, shows that the Complainant was assured that he would get 20-25% returns with two Unique Portfolio strategies. However, the policies, in question, issued by the Opposite Parties, were not as per the assurances, given by their employee. The complainant, from the very beginning, was agitating the matter that an employee of the Opposite Parties, sold these policies by misrepresentation. As such, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, for refund of the amount paid by him, as premium, alongwith interest. Since, the Opposite Parties, failed to refund the same, hence, there was deficiency, in rendering service, on their part, as they were very much liable for any act of omission or commission, on the part of their employee.
14. Now coming to the second issue, as regards the Opposite Parties, indulging into unfair trade practice, as they failed to adhere to the KYC Regulations, admittedly an employee of the Opposite Parties, issued the policies, in question, by not taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the IRDA to assess the annual income status of the complainant, which were of very high premium, by obtaining his proper income proof. In the present case, the complainant, in one of the proposal forms (Annexure R-2) had mentioned his annual income as Rs.4.50 Lacs. Therefore, practically, it was not possible for him to pay annual premium of Rs.3 Lacs for three policies. In our considered view, it is definitely a case of misrepresentation and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Thus, the complainant was entitled to get refund of Rs.3 Lacs alongwith interest, which he had deposited, as premium, for the three policies, but the District Forum, erred in not awarding this relief. To this extent, the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, needs to be modified.
15. The District Forum rightly, concluded that there was deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties. It, thus, rightly held them liable to refund Rs.2 Lacs with interest @9% per annum, arbitrarily debited by them to the account of the complainant, for reviving the policies, and also to pay compensation for deficiency, in rendering service, mental agony and physical harassment.
16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, awarded by the District Forum, to the tune of Rs.1 Lac and the penal interest @18% p.a. in case of non compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, in our opinion, the same are on the higher side and need to be reduced. To this extent, the impugned order, also needs modification.
17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, and the appellant/complainant, in person, in their respective appeals.
18. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.03 of 2013 filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, and No.435 of 2012 filed by the appellant/ complainant, are partly allowed and the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is modified as under: -
(i) The appellants/Opposite Parties, are directed to refund a sum of Rs.3 Lacs, illegally retained by them, as initial premium for three policies, to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the date of respective deposits, till actual payment;
(ii) The appellants/Opposite Parties, are further direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, instead of Rs.1Lac.
(iii) The directions given by the District Forum, in Para 12(b) of the impugned order, shall remain intact.
(iv) The aforesaid amounts mentioned in Clauses
(i) to (iii) shall be paid by the appellants/ Opposite Parties, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the appellants/Opposite Parties, shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith interest @12% per annum (instead of 18% per annum) from the date of order, till actual payment.
19. Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.03 of 2013.
20. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
7th March, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.435 of 2012) Argued by: Prof. Arun K. Lall, appellant in person.
Sh. S. R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated the 7th Day of March, 2013.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant alongwith the cross appeal No.03 of 2013, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, have been partly allowed, as per directions.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT Ad STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. :
03 of 2013 Date of Institution :
04.01.2013 Date of Decision :
07.03.2013
1.
M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai 400025.
2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160017.
3. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, CO No.70, Top Floor, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab.
Appellants/Opposite Parties.
Versus Prof. Arun K Lall, R/o House No.653, Punjab Engineering College Campus, Sector-12, Chandigarh 160012.
.Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. S. R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.
Prof. Arun K. Lall, respondent in person.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No.435 of 2012 titled Prof. Arun K. Lall Vs. Financial/Insurance Advisor, M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and another, vide which this appeal has been partly accepted. However, the application moved by the appellants, for leading additional evidence, on record, at the appellate stage, has been dismissed.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
7th March, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad