JAGDISH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.