Haryana

StateCommission

A/9/2016

ICICI PRU.LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DARSHAN KUMAR INDORA - Opp.Party(s)

CHETAN GUPTA

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      09 of 2016

Date of Institution:    05.01.2016

Date of Decision :     26.09.2016

1.     M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Patehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager.

2.     M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, ICICI PruLife Towers, 1089, Appasaaheb Marthe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400025 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Darshan Kumar Indora s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain, Resident of House No.172, Green park, Bhattu Road, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated November 24^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Darshan Kumar Indora-complainant/respondent, seeking insurable benefits on account of death of his wife-Manju, was allowed. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay insured sum of policy in question i.e. Rs.1,72,000/-  alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the complainant (after deducting an amount of Rs.83,362.04 which has already been paid) from the date of death of insured Manju i.e. 30.12.2014 till actual realization. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice”.

2.                Manju (since deceased)-wife of complainant/respondent was insured with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘ICICI Prudential’)-Opposite Party/appellant, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure R-3). The sum assured was Rs.1,72,200/-. The policy commenced from 21.10.2011.  The Life Assured died on 30.12.2014. The complaint filed claim with ICICI Prudential-Opposite Party. The ICICI Prudential paid Rs.83,362.04 to the complainant. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the ICICI Prudential only paid Rs.83,362.04 by applying 5% compounded interest on the deposited amount of instalments of premium, whereas as per the terms and conditions of the policy, he was entitled to get 10 times of the premium of instalments of Rs.24,600/-, that is, Rs.2,46,000/-. Thus, the complainant claimed amount of Rs.1,62,548/- from the ICICI Prudential alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the life assured till its actual realization and compensation.

3.                The opposite party- ICICI Prudential, contested complaint by filing written version stating that as per Clause 2.4 of the policy terms and conditions, the amount of Rs.83,361.04 was paid to the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 4.               After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite party- ICICI Prudential as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Heard. File perused.

6.                It is not disputed that the policy commenced from 21.10.2011. Though originally vide Clause 2.4 under heading “Guaranteed Death Benefit (GDB), only 10% compound interest was payable. However, later the policy terms were modified vide letter dated 17^th April, 2012 (Annexure R-8). The relevant part of the letter reads as under:-

“This has reference to your letter dated 21^st March 2012 with regard to the changes to products in response to Union Budget 2012.    

You may proceed with the proposed modifications on any day after receipt of this letter with the minimum death benefit as higher of 10 times the annual premium and all premiums paid compounded at the rate of 5% p.a. for the above mentioned Non-Linked product that currently do not offer a minimum sum assured of at least 10 times the annual premium subject to the condition that other terms & conditions shall remain unaltered”.

7.                Since the policy was modified by the opposite party- ICICI Prudential itself and on the directions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), which is a statutory body and binding upon all Insurance Companies operating all over the Country, the ICICI Prudential was bound to comply with the instructions issued by the IRDA.  In this case, the District Forum has awarded 10 times the annual premium of the policy as per modified terms. In view of this, the order under appeal does not require any interference.

8.                In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.                Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite party, states that they have paid the entire amount to the complainant in the proceedings before the District Forum, therefore, the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants, be refunded to the appellants in accordance with rules.  It is ordered accordingly.

 

Announced 26.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL