MD, ICICI Bank Limited vs Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr

V.K. Jain, J

The respondent/complainant Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta was an employee of the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. He had also availed the benefit of a group insurance policy obtained by the petitioner bank from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited. During the subsistence of the said policy, the complainant was treated in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai from 10.08.2011 to 19.08.2011. He submitted a claim of Rs.54,572/- seeking re-imbursement of the expenses incurred by him on his treatment. Vide e-mail dated 08.09.2011, the petitioner bank rejected the claim on the ground that his services having been terminated on 12.08.2011, he was no more an employee of the bank. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint impleading both ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited and the insurer as the OPs in the Consumer Complaint.

The complaints were resisted by the bank as well as by the insurer. A reply on behalf of the petitioner bank was filed by the then Authorized Representative Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal. During the pendency of the Consumer Complaint, the claim was settled by the insurer and it was intimated to the bank on 11.12.2013.

When the Consumer Complaint came up for final hearing before the District Forum, the insurer informed the said Forum that the claim had been approved by them. The District Forum thereupon allowed the Consumer Complaint with interest. The petitioner bank being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner bank vide its orders dated 16.04.2019 & 29.05.2019. While dismissing the complaint, the State Commission was of the view that a false plea had been taken by the petitioners herein that the services of the complainant had been terminated on 12.08.2011 and an affidavit in support of the said contention had been filed by Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal, authorized official of the bank. The State Commission later felt that a false plea had also been taken by the insurer when it stated that no claim had been submitted whereas infact, the claim had since been allowed by the insurer. The State Commission therefore, initiated an inquiry u/s 340 of Cr.P.C. against Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal of ICICI Bank and Mr. Sidharth Pareek of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited. They having responded to the notices issued by the State Commission, the said Commission, vide order dated 29.05.2019, dropped the proceedings against Mr. Sidharth Pareek but directed institution of a criminal complaint against Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal before the concerned Criminal Court. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners are before this Commission.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that while in the order dated 16.04.2019, the State Commission had taken a view that the petitioners including Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal, had taken a false plea when they claimed that the services of the complainant were terminated on 12.08.2011, in the second order, the State Commission took the view that they had presented a false reply and also given an affidavit by way of evidence since they did not disclose that the claim had already been approved by the insurer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a letter dated 18.05.2011 written by none other than the complainant Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta to the bank. In para 5 of the said letter, he has clearly stated that he was terminated by the bank vide order dated 12.08.2011, which he had got on 01.09.2011 at Jaipur. This was reiterated by the complainant in para 5 of his letter dated 27.12.2012 as well as in the letter dated 28.11.2013. Therefore, the State Commission was not justified in saying that the petitioners had taken a false plea as regards the termination of the services of the complainant on 12.08.2011.

It is true that the claim was approved by the insurer during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. It is also true that the intimation of the approval of the claim was sent by the insurer to the bank. Though, the claim came to be approved after the written version to the complaint had been filed by the bank through Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal, the said fact ought to have been brought to the notice of the District Forum. But, there is no material on record to show that the approval of the claim by the insurer was brought by any bank official to the personal notice of Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal at any point of time during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal superannuated from the services of the bank on 31.08.2017 and therefore, one Mr. Mukesh Kumar was appointed as its Authorized Representative before the District Forum which decided the Consumer Complaint on 20.07.2018. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mr. Jagdish Chandra Agrawal had deliberately withheld the information with respect to approval of the claim from the State Commission he being one of the several employees of the bank and the approval of the claim by the insurer having not come directly to him, he would not have known of it unless someone from the bank brought it to his notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had committed perjury when he filed an affidavit by way of evidence before the District Forum. He being ignorant of the approval of the claim on the date the said affidavit was filed, could not have shared the said information with the State Commission while filing his affidavit.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 16.04.2019 & 29.05.2019 cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complainant has already informed this Commission that the amount awarded to him by the District Forum stands fully paid. The Revision Petitions stand allowed.