PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Complaint No.- 68/2023
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,
Nandalal Dash,
S/O- Late Sudam Chandra Dash,
R/O-Dharmasala Lane,Sambalpur Town,
Near DayurAyurvedic Shop, Ps-Town
Dist-Sambalpur- .………………......Complainant.
Vrs.
- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Registered Office-ICICI Pru-Life Tower, 1089, AppasahebMarathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 having its different branches all over India, Represented through its Executive Director.
- Branch Manager, ICICI Bank,
Bazar branch, Nayapara Sambalpur,
Po/Dist- Sambalpur-768001 ……......Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. S.Dash & Associates
- For the O.P.No.1 :- Sri. B.K.Purohit. & Associates
- For the O.P.No.2 :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates
Date of Filing:11.05.2023, Date of Hearing :08.10.2024, Date of Judgement :12:11.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant on 17.08.2011 purchased a policy bearing No. 15850548 ICICI Pru Pinnacle LP policy and paid Rs. 60,000/- annually for 5 years and the last payment was due on 17.08.2015. The sum assured is Rs. 4,20,000/- in the event of death. The Complainant was prevented from withdrawal of the maturity amount of Rs. 3,53,000/- on 17.08.2020. The Complainant issued a letter to O.P. on 16.08.2021 raising objection on the amount. On 18.08.2021 the final amount of Rs. 3,59,270.28P was disbursed without giving the details of calculation.
The O.P. deducted GST from disbursement amount. After several correspondences also no result found. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.
- The insurer, O.P.No.1 submitted that Unit linked policy is a speculative investment and does not cover under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant has duly paid the premiums under the policy and it was matured on 17.08.2021 on completion of policy term of 10 years. Complainant had choosen to invest 100% of his premiums under the fund “Highest NAV fund B”. As per clause 2.2 of the policy the maturity amount payable was the greater of the i.e. fund value and Guarantee Fund Value. The Guarantee Fund Value was Rs.3,34,765 and fund value was Rs. 3,59,270.2P. Accordingly payment was made on Guarantee Fund Value.
As per policy terms and conditions after payment of following charges rest amount was invested.
- Premium allocation charges
- Top-up allocation charges
- Mortality charges
- Fund Management Charges
- Policy administration charges
- Miscellaneous Charges
The life assured was covered for a sum assured Rs. 4,20,000/-. The mortality charges Rs. 88,856.65P. were levied in said policy for covering the life of Complainant for 10 years. The Company has paid the maturity amount as per applicable fund value and policy terms.
Complainant not approached the company within free look period. The product choosen by the Complainant is an insurance cum investment plan. The Complainant has enjoyed the risk. Complainant is an educated and prudent person who knows terms and condition of the policy. Before signing the proposal form the Complainant is aware of the terms and conditions. No any documentary evidence has been filed in support of allegation regarding levy of GST. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- The O.P.No.2, Bank submitted that the Complainant not made out any prima-facie case of deficiency in service against the Bank. Insurance product has been purchased from O.P.No.1. the answering O.P. not receiving any complaint from Complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering O.P.
- Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The O.P.No.1 supplied a calculation sheet wherein total unit allocated were 26,321 3 units as on 17.08.2021 whereas allegation of the Complainant is that the units allocated is 19,265.16 units. There is difference if 7056 units. The O.P.No.1 in non of his reply letter clarified the issue raised by Complainant. Secondly the Complainant alleged that in 20111 BSE sensex was 20,621 and in 2021 it plunged to 62,248 points which was multiplied almost three times. The O.P.No.1 in its calculation shown unit price Rs. 9.51 which rose to Rs. 18.65P. The Complainant alleged that it is the duty of insurer to decide the selection of fund in the interest of insured but the insurer failed to safeguard the interest of the Complainant. The O.P.No.1 utilised the fund from 2015 to 2021 without giving any interest to the Complainant. The O.P.No.1 utilised the money for 5 years. It is the duty of O.P.No.1 to give the details of deductions made out of Rs. 4,20,000/-. It is admitted by the Complainant that Rs. 3,53,000/- was paid and after repeated objection paid Rs. 6,270.28P totalling Rs. 3,59,270.28P. A consumer has every right to get information when he has paid money to the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 in non of its correspondence reflected the details. Non-closure of the payment details amounts to deficiency in service of O.P.No.1.
The Complainant made several correspondences to the O.P.No.1 on maturity payment. The O.P.No.1 simply informed the highest NAV as Rs, 59,270.28P. It is the admission of O.P.No.1 that in different shapes like premium allocation charges top up allocation charges, mortality charges, fund management charges, policy administration charges , Miscellaneous charges and to-wards G.S.T. deductions have been made from maturity value of Rs. 4,20,000/-. The O.P.No.1 vide reply letter dated 17.03.2022 mentioned the different deductions but failed to give details of the charges taken out of Rs. 4,20,000/-. The O.P.No.1 informed simply the following:
No. of Units:19265.16478
Highest NAV of First 5 years of policy:15.797
As per clause 110% of highest NAV is :17,3767
Guaranteed Value: 334765
Net Asses Value on Maturity date (17.08.2021)
Fund value :Rs. 3,59,270.2784.
After several correspondences the O.P.No.1 paid Rs. 6,270.28P. This payment made second time proves the unfair trade practice of the O.P.No.1. Generally consumers do not go deep to a subject matter. As an expert on the financial management when the Complainant interfered the O.P.No.1 compelled to give the amount of Rs. 6270.28P. It proves arbitrary calculation of O.P. No.1.
- In the present complaint another point of consideration is pattern of investment. From 17.08.2011 to 17.08.2015 the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/-. The O.P.No.1 invested the said amount from 17.08.2015 to 17.08.2021( an amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs) and only paid Rs. 59,270.28P. The selection of fund is on the insurer for greater interest of the insured. Out of agreed amount of Rs. (4,20,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-) the O.P.No.1 only paid Rs. 59,270.28P the rest amount was deducted to-wards different charges. No doubt during 2011 to 2015 GST was not in force but when it came into force in 2017 the O.P.No.1 deducted the G.S.T. On this point the O.P.No.1 has taken right step as it is statutory deduction and payable to be state, has been made.
- The Complainant is having an consumer policy No. 15850548 and paid the premium to the O.P.No.1. Out of deposit/investment of the Complainant the O.P.No.1 is earning profits. As the Complainant is availing service from the O.P.No.1, the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P.No.1.
There is no any specific allegation against O.P.No.2 and hence O.P.No.2 is not a necessary party.
- From the Supra discussion following observations are made:
- The O.P.No.1 insurer after several correspondences also not disclosed the charges which were deducted from maturity value.
- After several correspondences payment of Rs. 6270.28P proves the unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1.
- A consumer has every right to know his investment and its growth. Non disclosure amounts to deficiency in service.
Taking into consideration the circumstances following order is passed:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P.No.1 and dismissed against the O.P.No.2. For deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the O.P.No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 7% interest P.A. from date of filling till payment. Further the O.P.No.1 is directed to give the detail amount of the deduction made within one month.
Order pronounced in the open Court today on 12th day of Nov, 2024.
Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.
