For Complainant : Sri Jajati Adhikari, Advocate.
For OP No.1 : Sri Kishore Kumar Patnaik, Advocate & associates.
For OP No.2 : Sri Trinath Singh Lal, Advocate & associates.
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he obtained Smart Kid Policy No.17833010 from OP.2 and paid Rs.84, 506/- p.a. as premium but without the knowledge of the complainant, the OP made the policy for 21 years and sent insurance certificate to his Jeypore address when the complainant had already left for his work place at USA. It is submitted that the complainant consulted the OP.2 who advised that unless 3 to 4 years of deposit is completed, the policy cannot be surrendered. It is further submitted that the complainant surrendered the policy after 4 deposits but the OP did not return his deposits of 4 years. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the deposited amount of contribution with penal interest.
2. The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that this OP is only a scheduled commercial bank under Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and basically deals with advancing loans on various products and accepting deposits and therefore, OP.1 is a custodian of public money. Further it is contended that the OP.2 is Insurance Co. under IRDA and the Ops are different to each other and hence any act and omission by any party cannot be vicariously liable upon other one. It is also further contended that the complainant has entered into agreement with OP.2 with regard to the insurance and OP.1 is no way related to the said deal. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the Smart Kid Insurance Policy No.17833010 dt.15.06.2013 with yearly premium amount of Rs.82, 498/- issued in favour of the complainant. It is contended that the policy was issued basing upon the proposal form duly filled in by the complainant and upon submission of required documents. The policy bond was accompanied by a forwarding letter in which it is clearly mentioned that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the terms of the policy, he can surrender the policy within 15 days of receipt of said policy. Accordingly the complainant has deposited 4 premiums and surrendered the policy. The OP.2 has accepted the surrender request and paid the surrender value of Rs.1, 28,589/- on 17.11.2016. On the allegations of the complainant, the OP.2 contended that the complainant was requested not to surrender the policy at this stage, as the surrender of the policy will attract deduction of charges but the complainant did not listen. The OP further contended that the complainant is not entitled for refund of entire deposit or bonus. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Parties have filed affidavits in support of their respective cases. Heard from the A/R for OP.1 and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case ICICI Pru Smart Kid Policy No.17833010 issued in the name of insured, Mr. Rajendra Adhikari on dt.15.6.2013 for yearly premium of Rs.82, 489/- is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has deposited 4 yearly premiums amounting to Rs.3, 38,395/- and on surrender of the policy on 16.11.2016, the complainant has received the surrender value of Rs.1, 28,589/- on 17.11.2016.
6. The case of the complainant is that the OP.2 without the knowledge of the complainant issued the policy which is for 21 years and as he left for USA he could not return the policy within free look period. It is seen that the complainant is a highly qualified person and has signed the proposal form. The complainant has put his Jeypore address in the proposal form and hence the OP.2 cannot send the insurance documents to USA. Regarding tenure of insurance policy, it can be said that the complainant has himself signed the proposal form and being a highly educated person he cannot raise objection that he was kept in dark regarding tenure of the policy. Therefore the OP.2 acted upon the instruction of the complainant.
7. It is the further case of the complainant that he surrendered the policy after depositing 4 premiums but the OP.2 has paid very much less amount than that of deposited amount. It is seen that the complainant has deposited Rs.3, 38,395/- and has received Rs.1, 28,589/- as surrender value on 17.11.2016. It is a fact that the OP.2 is the Insurance Co. who entered into a policy agreement with the complainant and the relationship between the parties is contractual in nature to be governed by an agreement entered into between them. The terms and conditions of the policy of insurance are binding upon the parties. The words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed therein without any addition. Hence the term of agreement including applicability of provisions and also its exclusions are to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.
8. In this case the Ops stated that they have paid the NAV of the policy on the date of surrender. The issues involved in the complaint are relating to accounts and disputed questions of facts. The complainant was required to pay the premiums under the policy for 21 years to become eligible for the benefits accrued under the policy. As such the OP.2 has acted purely in good faith and per the terms and conditions of the policy and paid the surrender value as per policy terms. From the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.2. Similarly, OP.1 is not a privy to the contract between the complainant and OP No.2 and hence we find no case against OP No.1.
9. Therefore, we find no merit in the case of the complainant which needs dismissal. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without cost in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
