State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Icici Prudential Life Insurance ... on 19 June, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 251 of 2013 Date of Institution : 14.06.2013 Date of Decision : 19.06.2013 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, aged 38 years, S/o Late Sh.D.N.Sharma, R/o H.No.395, Sector 7, Panchkula. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1] ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. 2] Raj Kumar Sharma, Associate Financial Service Manager, Office of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 9, Chandigarh, to be served through Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 9, Chandigarh. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). At the same time, the District Forum granted liberty to the complainant, to approach the Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction, for redressal of his grievance.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was holding Policy No.04780628, for the Insured Declared value, to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lacs, valid for the period from 17.03.2007 to 17.03.2017, which was purchased by him, from Opposite Party No.1, in the year 2007, vide Annexure C-1, against which he had paid regular premium of Rs.50,000/-, i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- for three years, and decided to wait for five years i.e. upto 2012, to get maximum returns. According to the complainant, in August 2010, Opposite Party No.2, approached the complainant, for issuance of another Policy i.e. ICICI Pru Life Stage Wealth, meant for existing policy holders. Opposite Party No.2, informed the complainant, that the fund value of his earlier Policy was about Rs.2.5 lacs, and, if he took the new Policy, then he need not to pay any money, as the same would be taken from his earlier Policy, as partial withdrawal, and the same (earlier Policy), shall also remain in operation.
3. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2, disclosed that the minimum amount to be invested, in the new Policy, was above Rs.30,000/-.
It was further told that the said amount was to be first credited, in the saving bank account of the complainant, in the State Bank of Patiala, from the previous Policy, and, later on, his (complainant) cheque was to be presented for the payment of premium, in the new Policy. Accordingly, the complainant signed the proposal form, on 23.08.2010, which had already been filled in by Opposite Party No.2. The complainant issued cheque, in the sum of Rs.30,100/-, in the name of Opposite Party No.1, which according to the Opposite Parties, was dishonoured. It was further stated that the complainant also received a message, on his mobile phone, on the very day i.e. on 24.08.2010, from Opposite Party No.1, to the effect that the fund value of his previous Policy was Rs.1,84,325.75Ps and not as disclosed by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that, it appeared that the Opposite Parties, in order to misguide and defraud the complainant, gave absolutely false and frivolous information, prompting him to invest, in another Policy, as detailed above. It was further stated that, it was amply clear that the intention of Opposite Party No.2, was to misguide him, so that he could be trapped in purchasing the new Policy. On such inducement, the complainant, took the second Policy, which was also cancelled on wrong facts.
4. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were asked to revert the amount of Rs.30,100/-, which was withdrawn, on account of partial withdrawal, from the earlier Policy, with all consequential benefits/returns, which he would have got, had he not withdrawn the same. It was further stated that it was made clear to the Opposite Parties, that, in the absence of fulfillment of aforesaid request, the complainant shall be constrained to prosecute them, in Criminal Court, as well as, in the Civil and Consumer Courts. It was further stated that the aforesaid fraudulent act and conduct of inducing the complainant, from partially withdrawing the amount of Rs.30,100/-, from the previous Policy, and investing the same, in the new Policy, and then cancelling/rejecting it, on false grounds and not reverting the said amount back to the previous Policy, inspite of written request, was nothing less then a gross negligence, on their part.
5. It was further stated that when no response was received from the Opposite Parties, a legal notice dated 25.09.2010, was also served upon them, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also 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), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to revert back the amount, lying in the later Policy, to earlier Policy, with all consequential benefits and returns, which he would have got, had he not withdrawn the same partially; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, on account of mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
6. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Policy No.04780628, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.5.00 lacs, valid for the period from 17.03.2007 to 17.03.2017, to the complainant, in the year 2007, vide Annexure C-1, It was stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, on 23.08.2010, for partial withdrawal of amount, from the said Policy, and, as such, submitted the partial withdrawal form, with a payout request form, for transfer of the requisite amount, in his State Bank of Patiala Account. On the same day, the complainant had also filled in another proposal form, for issuance of another Policy, under the ICICI Pru Life Stage Wealth Plan, and issued a cheque bearing no.987802, in the sum of Rs.30,100/-, payable at Dev College Branch Abohar of Punjab National Bank. It was further stated that the said cheque bounced, on account of insufficient funds, whereupon, the complainant submitted another cheque bearing no.840202 of the State Bank of Patiala, which was encashed. Accordingly, the Policy bearing No.14396634, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.1,50,500/-, valid for the period from 25.08.2010 to 25.08.2019, issued on 06.09.2010, was duly delivered, at the address of the complainant. It was denied that there was any fraud played, upon the complainant. It was also denied that the facts, were misrepresented to the complainant, by Opposite Party No.2, and he was induced to invest the amount of Rs.30,100/-, after partial withdrawal of the same, from his earlier Policy, in question. It was also denied that there was any cheating, practised upon the complainant. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of second Policy, he could make a request for cancellation thereof, during the free-look period of 15 days, but he did not do so. It was further stated that the complainant neither approached the Opposite Parties, with regard to any dissatisfaction, under Policy No.14396634 nor did he pay any further renewal premiums, as a result whereof, the Policy, automatically, lapsed and acquired the paid up status. It was further stated that, under Policy No.04780628, the complainant availed of CCO (Cover Continuation Benefit), in the month of March, 2012, whereby the same (Policy) remained in force, with full sum assured (life coverage). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, Opposite Party No.2, made representation, to the complainant, for getting the second Policy, and obtained a sum of Rs.30,100/-, after partial withdrawing the same, from the earlier Policy. He further submitted that the proposal form of the second Policy was not filled in, by the complainant, but by Opposite Party No.2, and, as such, the facts contained therein, were incorrect. He further submitted that, no complicated or complex questions of law and facts were involved, in the complaint, and it (complaint) could be adjudicated upon, by the District Forum, in summary proceedings. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
12. The perusal of paragraph number 4 of the complaint, clearly goes to reveal that the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that the Opposite Parties, in order to misguide and defraud him, gave an absolutely false and frivolous/misleading information, inducing him, to invest in another/second Policy. In paragraph number 6 of the complaint also, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant that it was amply clear that the Opposite Parties, with an intention to cheat him, induced him to partially withdraw the amount, from his earlier Policy, so that he may not be able to get the maximum returns/benefits, which he was eligible to get after the completion of five years of lock-in period, and thus, trapped him to obtain a new /second Policy. In paragraph number 3 of the complaint, it was also stated by the complainant, that he only signed the proposal form, on 23.08.2010, as the same had already been filled in by Opposite Party No.2. Not only this, these allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were also attempted to be corroborated, by the complainant, by way of filing his affidavit, in the shape of evidence. In other words, serious allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were levelled, by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties. Since, serious allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating were levelled, by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, it is to be determined, as to whether, such disputed and complex questions of fact and law could be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Commission and M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank 111 (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Commission, it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.s case (supra),there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife. The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum, accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured.
The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground, that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and for seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006. The Honble Supreme Court held that the proceedings before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents. It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.s case (supra) decided by the National Commission. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
13. Since, the disputed and complex questions of fact and law,, are involved in the complaint, as to whether, the signatures of the complainant, were obtained on the proposal form, on 23.08.2010, which had already been filled in, by Opposite Party No.2, without explaining the same to him; and whether the Opposite Parties, played fraud on the complainant, by giving absolutely false and frivolous/misleading information, prompting him, to invest in another Policy, with an intention to cheat him, by inducing him to partially withdraw the amount, from his earlier Policy, so that he may not be able to get the maximum returns/benefits, which he was supposed to get after the completion of five years lock-in period, and trapped in obtaining a new Policy, in our considered opinion, for proving such allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating, thorough analysis of documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross-examination is required.
Such disputed and complex questions/facts, therefore, could not be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, in the proceedings, which are summary in nature, before it. It was not that mere allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and cheating, referred to above, were levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, but he also attempted to prove the same, by way of filing affidavit, in the shape of evidence. The Opposite Parties, on the other hand, vehemently denied the same, and also attempted to disprove the same, by way of affidavit, in the shape of evidence. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such disputed and complex questions of fact and law. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it had no Jurisdiction to decide the complaint, the same being not maintainable before it. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to resort to any other legal remedy, which may be available to him, for redressal of his grievance, under the provisions of law.
18. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
June 19, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg