By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The complainants case in brief is that the petitioner is the insurance policy holder of respondents vide policy No.00797762 issued by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 11.3.2004 by paying an amount of Rs.4456/- by way of issuing a cheque dated 12.3.04 bearing No.466801 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Thrissur Branch towards first instalment. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the petitioner had to pay Rs.4456/- towards the 2nd instalment on 11.9.04 and the petitioner paid the amount by way of issuing a cheque dated 11.9.04 bearing No.466802 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Thrissur Branch towards the next instalment of the policy premium the petitioner had to pay Rs.4456/- within a period of 11.3.2005 to 11.4.2005. Believing the better service the petitioner approached the company for paying the 3rd policy instalment amount and for enquiring about further joining new policies on 5.4.05 at about 11.30 a.m. The security guard told the petitioner that he should spell the name of the financial advisor to get entry to the branch. Accordingly the petitioner told his advisors name that the financial advisor is Mr. Thomas Chirayath. Then the security guard informed that Mr. Thomas Chirayath is not present so could not enter into the premises. When the matter intimated to the branch manager, he told about the loss of the company and also told that the complainant can quit from the scheme and take the paid money back. Since the respondents assured good service from the company the petitioner joined to the scheme. Petitioner had lost faith in the company and also decided to terminate the further proceedings of the scheme. The act of the respondents led to mental agony and there is deficiency in service. He is entitled for the paid amount and compensation. Lawyer notice sent and a reply was addressed stating untenable conditions. Hence this complaint. 2. The version in brief is as follows. Complainant had taken the policy as stated in the petition. He had opted for the policy on his own accord. He had also paid the first premium on the date of policy. The complainant had opted for half yearly frequency of premium payment of Rs.4456/- for the term of the policy. The risk commencement date of the policy was 11.3.04 and the next half yearly premium payment date fell due on 11.9.04. The complainant paid the above said first two premium amounts in time. The third half yearly premium amount fell due on 11.3.05. The complainant was entitled to a grace period of thirty days within which he could make payment, which expired on 11.4.05. As the premium payment was not effected within the grace period, the policy lapsed. Communications were sent to the petitioner also. The allegation that premium amount has rejected is false. As per the norms of the company the complainant is entitled to remit the premium in any of the Branches or collection centres including the branches of the Federal Bank in Kerala. The complainant has not chosen to remit the premium amount for the reasons best known to him. The company has been providing best services to the policyholders. There is absolutely no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Complainant has no right to claim any amount for his own latches. Hence dismiss. 3. The points that arise for consideration are the following. (1) Is there any deficiency in service? (2) If so, is the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed? (3) Other reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and Exts. R1 and R2. 5. Points-1 to 3: The complainant had remitted two premiums towards the policy. Only because of the alleged incident on 5.4.05 he had abstained from the payment. The respondents stated in the version that this complaint is put forth by the complainant at the instigation of Sri. Thomas Chirayath who was insurance advisor/agent and whose services were terminated with effect from 8.3.05. As a policy holder the complainant can enter into the branch premises for paying the premium. The company men have no authority to prevent him. Without stating any reason the guard prevented. If the payment is prevented through the branch he can pay the premium as per Ext. R2. He did not do so. He immediately decided to stop the policy and take legal action. His duty is not performed by him. If he wanted to continue the policy, he can pay the premium through the branches of Federal Bank. As per Ext. R1, if the premium is not paid during the grace period, the policy shall lapse and no benefit shall be payable. The complainant had to make payment on 11.4.05, within the grace period. But it was not effected. Hence the policy lapsed. There was nothing to abstain from the payment. The Insurance Advisor of the respondent told him about the development of the company. So his attitude of stopping the policy cannot be justified. There is no deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought. 6. In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs. No order as to compensation. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of August 2008.
