State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramilaben D Patel vs Icici Prodential Life Ins Co Ltd. on 1 February, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 01 01 2021
Date of filling 02 06 2014
Duration 01 07 07
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-3
APPEAL NO. 1186 of 2014 Dt: 01/02/2021
Ramilaben D. Patel
R/o 1410, Lake Washington Circle,
Lawrenceville, G.A.-30024, U.S.A.
Through Power of Attorney Holder
Chiragbhai Madhubhai Patel
R/o 5, Tarun Society,
Gotri Road, Vadodara. ...Appellant
Vs.
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Bank,
Landmark Building, 2nd Floor,
Race Course Circle,
Vadodara. ...Respondent
Appearance: Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. G. K. Mehta, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent
Coram: (Shri S. N. Vakil, Member)
(Shri J.Y. Shukla, Member)
Order by Shri S. N. Vakil, Member
1. This is Complainant‟s Appeal.
2. The Complainant Ramilaben D. Patel, filed the Consumer Complaint No. 161 of 2010 with CDRF, Vadodara against the Respondent - Opponent - The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., alleging that she invested 1 Rs. 2 Lakhs vide policy No. 04498885 on 29-12-2016. The opponent had to send the policy immediately and the complainant has to inform within 15 days if he wanted to continue the policy, otherwise the policy would continue and had to pay premium of Rs. 2 lakhs for other two years more. With the form, she had given his permanent address. The complainant has not received the policy till today and had no option to continue the policy or not. In this regard the complainant informed the opponent many times informing by telephone or Email. But the opponent did not paid any attention and had not even performed its duties till today. The opponent has not done anything and has failed in its duties. After informing so many times the opponent give password but it did not work. The complainant therefore informed the opponent to give other password which also did not work and thereby the complainant is not in a position to see her portfolio. Officer of the opponent were informed telephonically but they have shown utter negligence, gave different password which did not work, whereby she has suffered economic loss and mental pain. The opponent tried to get POD from the Courier company in two days but they could not get it nor give any satisfaction to the complainant. The opponent was illegally asking second installment According to them, they sent the policy kit but the complainant has not received it. The kit was received back by opponent officer Shri Bhavikbhai on 05.04.2007 but the opponent did not arranged for anything so that the complainant gets the kit whereby the complainant can decide whether to continue the policy or not. The opponent has made fraud with the complainant. The opponent were asking for her 2 installment was given for paying into the policy but the complainant deposited in her saving accounts and did not deposit in towards her policy. They had to wake till late night to talk from America to opponent‟s officer, yet they have shown negligence, deficiency in services and has to suffer mental pain, for which she claims for Rs.50,000/-. In 2008, the complainant came to India met personally and represented. He also made representation by letter given by hand but the opponent are not giving any reply. Lastly in 2010, when the complainant came to India also made representation by written letters and personally also, but the opponent has not paid any attention to her representation nor are giving any information. They did not give reply for one and half month during her stay in India. The complainant has not received policy kit till today. For this deficiency he claims Rs. 2 lakhs with 12% interest from 29.12.2006, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain and Rs.3,000/- for costs of this application.
3. Defence of the opponent ICICI Prudential life insurance Company Ltd., vide written Version is of total denial. The complainant has approached the Hon‟ble Forum after lapse of two years from the arising of alleged cause of action. It does not raise any consumer dispute and is not maintainable under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The policy was issued in January 2007 to the complainant while complaint came with grievances after expiry of four years of issuance of the subject policy which is barred by limitation by virtue of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency on the part of the opponent. Under the policy terms the complainant was required to make 3 payment of the premium regularly on due day or during the grace period. However, admittedly, the complainant failed to make the premium on due date to his own fault and allowed the subject policy to foreclose. Thus, it was due to non-payment of the premium the subject policy was foreclosed on 23.02.2010. Therefore, the present complaint is without any cause action and is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant, a policy bearing no. 04498885 was issued in the name of the complainant on 16.02.2007 under "U40, Life Time Super Plan". The opponent had dispatched the policy documents along with letter on 02.04.2007 vide Blue Dart Courier vide AWb No. 32373268233 on the communication address of the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 27.02.2007 as per opponents official record. The welcome letter clearly mentioned the free look provision- the benefit of the free look period. However, the complainant filed the present complaint after expiry of the free look period. Accordingly the complainant is not entitled for any refund under the free look provision. The parties are bound by the terms and condition of policy. The allegations pertaining to non-receipt of policy documents are baseless and cooked up story. As the complainant has requested fund switch or allocation of future premium on 09.07.2008 and the same was denied as the policy of the complainant was in paid up statue due to nonpayment of premium on due dates or during the grace period and same was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 09.07.2008. This fact clearly shows that the complainant has received the policy documents and is well aware of the terms and conditions of the 4 subject policy. The complainant never approached the replying opponent or has raised any concern during the entire time or even at the time. It is only after receiving the foreclosure notice the complainant approached the Hon‟ble Forum with a cooked up, false and an illusionary story of non-receipt of policy documents. The allegations raised in the complaint are false, frivolous and baseless and are merely an afterthought. The registered office of the insurance co. is at Bombay carrying inter-alia business of life insurance. And therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Hon‟ble Forum. The opposite party received a proposal form dated 05.01.2007 duly filled and signed by the complainant seeking insurance on life under the plan U40, Life Time Super Pension Plan choosing yearly mode of premium frequency. The premium of Rs. 15,00,000/- payable yearly. On the basis of the proposal form the complainant issued the policy to the opponent on 16.02.2007 bearing No. 04498885. In accordance with clause 6 (2) of the IRDA, Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentioned that in case the policyholder is not satisfied with the features or terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw or return the policy within 15 days i.e. under "Free Look Period" provision. Under clause 4(1) of the IRDA Regulation a copy of proposal form duly signed by the policy holder is also sent to the policy holder along with the policy document giving him opportunity to reexamine the replies made by him in the proposal and get the details rectified in case of any discrepancy in the proposal form. A copy of the proposal form was also sent along with the policy document to the 5 complainant on 02.04.2007 vide Airway bill number 32348697990 through blue dart courier at the registered address of the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 27.02.2007. It is worth to mention that the replying opponent party never received any communication or information with regard to any discrepancy with the proposal form or the policy document during the free look period meaning thereby the complainant accepted the policy and its terms and conditions. The complainant paid the first premium deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of issuance of policy, thereafter failed to pay subsequent premium on due date or during the grace period, as a result the policy was foreclosed on 23.02.2007. The complainant had sent a letter dated application for fund switch on 09.07.2008 for to change the premium frequency from yearly to half yearly. However, even that time also the complainant never asked for the policy document which clearly shows that the complainant had received the policy document and is aware of the terms and conditions of the subject policy. The request for fund switch was denied as the subject policy of the complainant was in paid up state. The complainant is guilty of suggest veri supressi falsi. The complainant has approached this Hon‟ble Forum with unclean hands suppressing the utmost material facts from the forum. It is just an after thought with buddle of lie as the complainant is an educated person and had signed the proposal form and further she had approached the replying opponent party after the completion of free look period. The opposite party submit that the copy of the proposal form along with the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 02.04.2007 on his 6 communication address vide airway Bill number 32373268233 and the same has been received by the Complainant on 27.02.2007 as per company record. It is denied that the complainant was not replied, the complainant has never approached the answering O.P for cancellation of the subject policy during the period and afterwards. It is for the first time the complainant is raising the frivolous allegation to gain the unlawful money from the opponent. It is denied that wrong password to the complainant was provided. Then the question of writing mails does not arise because without having the registered ID and the password the consumer cannot communicate to the company. Therefore, it is apparent from the contrary and illusionary averments made in the present complaint that the complaint is baseless and a classic example of an afterthought. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not annexed/enclosed any document in support of the allegation made in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service. The complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. The CDRF Vadodara by its order dated 21.03.2014 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant has suppressed material fact that she applied on 09.07.2008 to close the policy and for refused. In addition the premium has been changed from early to half yearly, thus also there is reason to believe that the complainant has knowledge of the policy terms. The conditions are binding to both the parties. If the policy is closed before 5 years, she has to suffer.
5. Being aggrieved by the same the complainant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the forum has not properly appreciated the facts of 7 the matter and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Forum ought to have considered that policy documents were never provided to the appellant but by not considering the fact, it has dismissed the complaint by considering the mere say of the respondent that the policy documents were provided to the appellant and that without any proof, rather indeed proof and evidence on record are contrary that which also proves that judgment of the Forum is erroneous.
6. Heard advocate Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, for the Appellant and Mr. G. K. Mehta for the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. And read its written arguments.
7. In her husband‟s letter dated 22.01.2010 he states to the effect that they did not receive the copy of the policy, the bank in last response mentioned that the policy was sent by courier and was sent to their local address 22, Aradhna Society, Baroda but that courier was picked up by your bank staff member Mr. Bhrambhatt, the signed copy is attached with this letter; and in his letter to Idhay Vannial dated 17.02.2010 he states to the effect that he personally handed a letter to him, showing the evidence that he never received the policy. Instead, it was delieved to Mr. Talati‟s residence and after on very next day it was picked up by Mr. Bhrambhatt (I think the instructions must have been given by Mr. Balashria.), that letter was signed by Mr. Bhrambhatt. Now, the letter is on small letter pad of Mr. Bhavik Bhrambhatt, Relationship Manager- Investment & Insurance. It has been written thereon as: "I have received two courier of my Dinesh Patel. (2) policy documents. Return (Or Refuse?)". Then it bears one signature with date 05.04.2007 and then 8 below it another signature of Bhavik Bhrambhatt is there. (The said signature, after the writing, is when compared with the signature in the proposal form of her husband in companion Appeal No. 1187 of 2014, in its Column 11, found to be that of the Advisor/ FSC having Code No. 00151827.) Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Bhrambhatt did not pick up the courier from Mr. Talati‟s residence, but it was refused or returned; then after it came in the bank, was received by the said (advisor on 05.04.2007) above Bhavik, who eventually, mentions „my‟ just before „Dinesh Patel‟ which clearly shows that the courier was re-received by him on behalf of the complainant on 05.04.2007, and below it the signature of Mr. Bhrambhatt is in nature of counter-sign only. Had it been picked up by Mr. Bharambhatt, then there would have been only his signature after the writing without any words as " „my‟ Diensh Patel"
and without any intervening signature (of Advisor) with the said words as "my Dinesh Patel". This undoubtedly confirms aforesaid findings that Mr. Bhrambhatt did not pick up the courier next day or so from the residence of Mr. Talati, but it returned to the bank; then was re-received by the advisor for the complainant on 05.04.2007; and that signature of Mr. Bhrambhatt below is in nature of counter-sign only. It is pertinent to note that the pleadings does not speak that the policy kit was picked up by Bhavikbhai very next day from the residence of Mr. Talati.
8. In the Proposal Form in Column No.9 for permanent Address she wrote C/o K. C, Talati, 22, Aredhna Soc., B/h National Playa, Alkapuri, as opponent‟s letter dated 09.07.2008 sent to Mr. Dinesh Patel was address as „Mr. Dinesh Patel, C/o. K.C.Talati, 22, Aradhna Soc., Bh. National 9 Plaza, Alkapuri R.C. Road, Baroda..." The courier was sent to this very address given by them; it has been held that it was not picked up by Mr. Bhrambhatt next day or so as alleged; and it was returned to the bank; therefore in eye of law the policies should have been procured by the complainant which they did as found above.
9. The complainant, or her husband was in India from 05.02.2008 to 21.02.2008. In his letter dated 08.07.2008, he mentioned policy Nos. of both the policies. It is pertinent to note that had he not received the policies, the letter dated 08.07.2008 following his visit in India from 05.02.2008 to 21.02.2008 it would not have any mention of policy by their „numbers‟, but they the policy Nos. being there clearly proves that he had their policies with him.
10. All these negatives contentions of the complainant in this regard.
11. In his e-mail dated 8 July, 2008, he complaints that the password was given to look into the portfolio and make necessary changes online. But the password never work...so they issued the another password... but .... Password given us to work. By that time, we have lost substantial amount of fund. He would like to transfer all of their investments from maximiser to preserver as soon as possible. By his letter dated 09.07.2008 he states that he has no other choice but to take this matter legal ways and also asked why the media should not be involved. It is pertinent to note that during all these period there is no grievances that they have not received the policy, and it is only that he emails on 14.07.2008 for non-receipt of policy. He was in India from 11.01.2010 to 21.02.2010 and during this period he alleging that he had not received 10 policy and asked for the policies by letter dated 22.01.2010, 03.02.2010 and 17.02.2010. In view of the facts found that they did receive the policies, and in view of the fact that policies were in paid up status, these efforts are clearly found more in nature of building up a case based on non-receipt of policy, for the benefit of free look period to return the policy within the period of 15 days from the receipt of policies and receive back the amount after deduction of proportionate mortality and rider changes, insurance stamp duty on the policy and expense born by the company on the medical. It would be so, it being only after policy being in paid up status, that all of this endevour has been to take benefit of legal position on account of free look period. But for the forgoing reasons the complainant is not found to be having any case, the findings beings otherwise. None of the citations submitted therefore could be given effect for the benefit of the complainant or for finding deficiency with the opponent. They are: Sri Anup Kumar Biswas Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Kolkata) decided on 17/02/2009; Kamaljeet Singh Vs. LIC of India, (Chandigarh) decided on 01/02/2013; Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Reported in II (2013) CPJ 36B (CN) (UT); SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amrit Kaur, reported in III (2014) CPJ 96 (Punj.); The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh & Anr., reported in II (2014) CPJ 374 (NC).
12. The grievance is that the password was given to look into the portfolio and make necessary changes online did not work, they have lost substantial amount of fund, the opponent has shown deficiency in service thereby. Now since there is nothing on record to show which 11 website was to be addressed with, which user ID by whom, when and how such user ID was supplied to the complainant, was there any facility to retrieve or reset password or not, what was the menu available from the website, whether the portfolio could be managed after the policy was lapsed and like questions are material, to find any deficiency in service with the opponent or otherwise, are not before the Forum or this Commission. Therefore, complainant‟s case fails in this regard.
13. For the reason stated the appeal fails, and the judgment and order of the Forum deserves to be confirmed, for which following final order is passed.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 1186 of 2014 is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 of the CDRF, Vadodara (Addl), rendered in CC No.161 of 2010, is confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
iv) Registry is directed to pay the deposited amount, with accrued interest, if any, on proper verification to the appellant by account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 1st day of February, 2021.
(J.Y.Shukla) (S.N.Vakil)
Member Member
K.S.Patel
12