Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/27

J.K.Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

I.S.Luthra

19 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 27 dated 15.01.2021.                                                Date of decision: 19.07.2024. 

 

Dr. J.K. Chawla, aged about 70 years son of Late Sh. Lal Chand, resident of H. No.264, Aggar Nagar Enclave, Barewal Road, Opp. PNB, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., Ground Floor & Upper Basement, Unit No.1A & 2A, Raheja Tipco Plaza, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097 (Mah.)
2. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 7^th Floor, S.C.O. No.120, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. I.S. Luthra, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. V.S. Mand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a retired Professor from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. In 2014, he purchased an insurance policy from the OPs namely ICICI Pru Guaranteed Wealth Protection Policy No.19365309 by paying an annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- regularly. ECS mandate was given to the OPs through State Bank of India, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana at the time of inception of the policy in order to auto debit of annual premium. The complainant stated that the OPs have failed to perform as per the settled norm and has breached his trust by misusing the ECS mandate facility as the OPs deducted Rs.50,000/- on 30.06.2016 from his account in illegal manner without having any outstanding on the part of the complainant. The complainant further stated that at the time of said ECS mandate, there was minimum balance due to which Rs.575/- was deducted from his bank. It amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. According to the complainant, the OPs have committed offence U/s.379, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The OPs promised the complainant to return the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest, bank charges, damages, loss of reputation but thereafter failed to do so and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant further requested that he many times requested the OPs to return the amount along with interest and thus, the OPs only returned Rs.50,000/- only on 20.08.2016 in his bank account. The complainant sent reminders/letters dated 24.05.2018, 18.01.2019 and 27.02.2019 and number of Emails to the OPs but they did not give any response. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to unfair trade practice. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.12.2019 through Sh. Inderjit Singh Luthra, Advocate but to no avail. Even the complainant approached Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh who passed an award dated 20.11.2019, which is reproduced as under:-

                   “AWARD

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by Insurance Company during the course of personal hearing, the insurance company is directed to pay interest on delayed refund amount along with actual bank charges in respect of policy No.19365309. Hence the complaint is treated as closed.”

In compliance of said order, the OPs deposited a sum of Rs.1162.67 in account of the complainant on 26.12.2019 whereas the complainant has claimed bank charges, damages for commission of breach of trust, harassment, loss of reputation, delayed interest @18% per annum as well as legal charges. The complainant further stated that the Insurance Ombudsman in its order has not awarded suitable compensation, payment of interest @24% PA on illegally deducted amount of Rs.50,000/- whereas the Insurance Ombudsman held the OPs to be deficient in providing service. The observation of Insurance Ombudsman is reproduced as under:-

“It is also observed that company had admitted that due to system error dishonoured action has taken for which bank had charged some charges but in this whole process there was no fault of the complainant. Hence the insurance company cannot deny deficiency in service on their part.”

In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay interest @24% per annum on the illegally withdrawn and retained amount of Rs.50,000/- along with bank charges, damages for the commission of breach of trust, harassment, loss of reputation and delayed interest @24% per annum. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/-.

2.                 Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary submissions/objections on the ground of maintainability; the complainant being not a Consumer U/s.2(7) of the C.P. Act; the complaint being false and frivolous etc. The OPs stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint with sole intention to make a monetary profit and gain out of the inadvertent error of the company which the company has already redressed. The complainant has demanded interest @24% per annum as against 8.25% which has already been paid to the complainant on 24.12.2019 in view of order dated 28.11.2019 of the Insurance Ombudsman and now no amount is due towards them and there is no deficiency in service on their part as alleged.

                   In the column Facts of the Case, the OPs stated that on 29.06.2015, they received a proposal form along with customer declaration form (CDF) and an ECS mandate form from Sh. Jagdish Kumar Chawla for issuance of a Guaranteed Wealth Protector LP (U98), plan for an annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- payable for Premium Payment Term of 5 years. On the basis of the information provided in the application form, the policy bearing number 19365309 was issued on 30.06.2015 to the complainant. The Life Assured under the subject policy was Ms. Loveena Chawla, wife of the complainant. The details of the policy is reproduced as under:-

Application Number	OS03919058
Policy Number	19365309
Policy Plan	Guaranteed Wealth Protector LP U98
Life Assured	Loveena Chawla
Owner/Proposer	Jagdish Kumar Chawla
Sum Assured	Rs.20,00,000/-
Proposal Date	June 29, 2015
Proposal Received Date	June 29, 2015
Risk Commencement Date	June 30, 2015
Policy Issue Date	June 30, 2015
Premium	Rs.2,00,000/-
Premium Frequency	Annually
Policy Term & Premium Payment Term	5 Yrs and 10 Yrs
Policy Status	Surrendered on 01.02.2021

 The OPs further stated that they received 5 annual premiums of Rs.2,00,000/- each, totaling to an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the complainant and accordingly the subject policy attained fully paid status and continued as per the terms and conditions. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs with a grievance that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deducted from his bank account and upon evaluation of the same, it was noted that on 30.06.2016, due to an inadvertent operational error an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deducted from the bank account of the complainant by way of the ECS mandate. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was duly refunded back to State Bank of India bank account bearing No. 10088254289 of the complainant on 19.08.2016. Even the complainant has admitted the fact regarding refund of extra premium. The OPs further stated that the complainant approached them several times between the period 2016-2018, regarding the same concern and they have duly responded to all such communications reiterating and clarifying that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was duly refunded back to his bank account on 19.08.2016 itself. However, on 15.09.2018, as a service gesture the OPs agreed to process an amount of Rs.576.31/- towards interest at 8.25% p.a. from 30.06.2016 i.e. day of inadvertent deduction to 19.08.2016 i.e. day of refund of amount and requested that the complainant to submit a duly signed discharge voucher and cancelled cheque. But the complainant failed to do so and rejected the said offer rather sought further compensation which could not be processed. The OPs further stated that thereafter the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh on 27.02.2019 with the same grievance who during assessment of the case, observed that the OP Company was willing to pay interest as compensation for the same. So the Insurance Ombudsman Vide order dated 20.11.2019, directed the OP Company to process interest and refund of bank charges and accordingly, the OPs duly complied with the Insurance Ombudsman Order and processed the following amounts on 24.12.2019 into State Bank of India bank account bearing no: 10088254289 of the complainant  The complainant has admitted regarding receipt of said amount. The detail of the payments made to the complainant is reproduced as under:-

Particulars	Amount	Date and Mode of Payment
Interest at 8.25% on Rs.50,000/- from 30.06.2016 to 19.08.2016	Rs.587.67	24.12.2019 NEFT
Refund of charges deducted by bank for insufficient fund on 30.06.2016	Rs.287.50	24.12.2019 NEFT
Refund of charges deducted by bank for insufficient fund on 30.06.2016	Rs.287.50	24.12.2019 NEFT
Total	Rs.1162.67

 

As the OPs have duly complied with the order of the Insurance Ombudsman and indemnified and compensated the complainant for any inconvenience or loss caused to him as such, nothing is due or pending on the part of the OPs. Even the OPs sent a reply letter dated 24.01.2020 to the legal notice dated 30.12.2019 of the complainant reiterating the said facts.

                   The OPs further stated that the 01.02.2021, the complainant voluntarily surrendered/terminated the said policy and he received a surrender value of Rs.11,11,653.88/- as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy. This payment was processed vide NEFT on 09.02.2021 into bank account of the complainant with State Bank of India bank account bearing no: 10088254289. Therefore as far as the subject policy is concerned the same has been surrendered as on date and no further amount is payable to the complainant.

                   In parawise reply, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the Aadhar Card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of policy certificate as well as terms and conditions of the policy, Ex. C3 is the copy of passbook of the complainant, Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 are the copies of letters dated 24.05.2019, 18.01.2019, 27.02.2019, 28.01.2017 of the complainant, Ex. C8 to Ex. C12 is the Email correspondence, Ex. C14 is the copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2019, Ex. C15 is the copy of letter dated 24.01.2020 of the OPs, Ex. C16 is the copy of award dated 28.11.2019 of Insurance Ombudsman and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit  Ex. RA of Sh. Thejus Joseph, Authorized Representative of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of  proposal form, Ex. R2 is the copy of letter dated 15.09.2018 of the OPs, Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 20.09.2018 of the OPs, Ex. R4 is the copy of complaint details before Insurance Ombudsman, Ex. R5 is the copy of letter dated 01.11.2019 of the OPs, Ex. R6 is the copy of order dated 20.11.2019 of the Insurance Ombudsman, Ex. R7 is the copy of confirmation certificate dated 02.03.2021 issued by the OPs, Ex. R8 is the copy of reply dated 24.01.2020 of the legal notice dated 30.12.2019 and closed the evidence.                                                        

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by the OPs.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant was a holder of policy namely Guaranteed Wealth Protector LP U98 Ex. C2 issued on the basis of proposal form Ex. R1 in the name of the life insured Ms. Loveena Chawla and the complainant was the proposer of the policy. The policy was for a term period of 10 years to be commenced from 30.06.2015 having end date 30.06.2025 for an annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- each with premium paying term for 5 years. Undisputably, the complainant paid 5 annual premiums of Rs.2,00,000/- each since the inception of the policy and an ECS mandate was option for auto debit of premium amount. Due to some operational glitches, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deducted on 30.06.2016 from the bank account of the complainant. On becoming aware of the unauthorized deduction, the OPs promptly refunded an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the account of the complainant through NEFT. Apparently, the amount was deducted inadvertently and more so there was no delay on the part of the OPs to credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Despite this, the complainant continued to raise the grievance with the OPs and sought exorbitant interest @24% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- besides the refund of charges deducted by the bank. Even the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman and the Insurance Ombudsman was pleased to pass an award dated 20.11.2019 Ex. C16 = Ex. R6, the operative part of the same is produced as under:-

                   “AWARD

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by Insurance Company during the course of personal hearing, the insurance company is directed to pay interest on delayed refund amount along with actual bank charges in respect of policy No.19365309. Hence the complaint is treated as closed.”

7.                Thereafter, in compliance of the award of the Insurance Ombudsman, the following payments were made by the OPs in the bank account of the complainant:-

Particulars	Amount	Date and Mode of Payment
Interest at 8.25% on Rs.50,000/- from 30.06.2016 to 19.08.2016	Rs.587.67	24.12.2019 NEFT
Refund of charges deducted by bank for insufficient fund on 30.06.2016	Rs.287.50	24.12.2019 NEFT
Refund of charges deducted by bank for insufficient fund on 30.06.2016	Rs.287.50	24.12.2019 NEFT
Total	Rs.1162.67

 

The said amounts were duly credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant in his complaint has admitted the fact regarding receipt of said amounts. Still the complainant  went on to issue a legal notice dated 30.12.2019 Ex. C14 which was duly replied by the OPs on 24.01.2020 narrating and reiterating the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the payments made to the complainant. Despite this fact, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 15.01.2021. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

 

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.