By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant in brief is that the petitioner is the insurance policy holder vide policy No.00970570 issued by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 25.6.2004 by paying an amount of Rs.5000/- towards policy amount which commenced on 25.6.04. It was introduced by the respondent company that the policy is a Life Time Pension Scheme. As per the terms of the scheme the 2nd instalment of the policy was paid by the petitioner as half yearly by way of issuing the cheque for Rs.5000/- dated 19.1.2005 bearing No.548971 drawn on ICICI bank Ltd. To continue the policy the petitioner had to pay Rs.5000/- due on 25.6.05 within 25.7.05 including grace period. The petitioner joined to the scheme while he was working as financial advisor of the company at Thrissur branch. The petitioner was very prompt, punctual and honest to the company while working as the financial advisor. The petitioner joined to the Lifetime Pension scheme policy introduced by the company believing the assurance and best service. The petitioner approached to the branch at Thrissur of the company on 27.6.05 for about 11.30 a.m. Instead of getting a warm entry the security guard prevented and misbehaved him. He intimated the matter to the Branch Manager who told that as per the company records the petitioner is a fraud and even if he is paying the premium it will not be refunded. He also threatened to take police action against him. Being a policyholder and as a customer the petitioner has every right to get entry to the premises. The petitioner joined to the scheme on the belief that he can pay the premium directly to the branch at Thrissur. The petitioner lost his entire faith with the company and he decided to terminate the policy. 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.5000/- for the terms of the policy. The risk commencement date of the policy was 25.6.04 and the next half yearly premium payment date fell due on 25.1.05. The complainant paid the above said premium amount in time. The third half yearly premium amount fell due on 25.6.05. The complainant was entitled to a grace period of thirty days within which he could make payment, which expired on 25.7.05. 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 himself was an insurance advisor cannot pretend ignorance regarding the terms. As per the terms of the policy, complainant has an option of surrendering the policy only after paying the premium for the continuing period and at frequency as provided in the policy document. 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) Is the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed? 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and Exts. R1 and R2. 5. Points-1 & 2: The petitioner had paid two premiums towards the insurance policy. Only because of the sad incident alleged in the petition he has abstaining from the payment. The respondents stated in the version that there was no such incident as alleged. Both are admitted that the complainant was the financial advisor of the respondent company. So he is well aware of the mode of payment, terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the statements of the petitioner regarding, he has joined to the scheme by believing the assurance and best service is not acceptable. He was well aware of the situations. At the time of filing the case, the complainant was not a staff in the company. In para-2 of the petition, it is stated that as per the company records the petitioner is fraud. So from this it can be realized that the alleged incident was there. As a policyholder he can enter the branch premises for paying the premium. The company men have no authority to prevent him. If the relationship with the company is not in good terms the complainant can surrender the policy. He did not do so. If the payment is prevented through the branch, he can pay the premium as per Ext. R1. 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. Ext. R1 is the copy of policy document in which it is elaborately stated that if the premium is not paid during the grace period, the policy shall lapse and no benefit shall be payable. In this case the complainant has to make payment on 25.7.05. But it was not effected, hence the policy lapsed and he is not entitled for any benefit. This point is found against the complainant. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. 7. 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 11th day of August 2008.
