Haryana

StateCommission

A/1039/2014

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dharampal Katariya - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.1039 of 2014

Date of Institution:12.11.2014    Date of Decision:14.03.2016

1.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd, ICICI Prolife Tower, 1089 Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400025.

2.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager Rani Talab, Jind (Haryana)

          Both 1 and 2 through their authorized signatory.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Dharampal Katariya S/o Dhariya Singh R/o House No.3643 Urbane Estate, Jind Tehsil and District Jind.

         …..Respondent

 

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Lathar, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

First Appeal No.590 of 2015

Date of institution:-13.07.2015

Date of decision:- 14.03.2016

 

Dharampal Singh kataria S/o Sh.Daria Singh R/o 3643-P, Urban Estate, Jind.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd, ICICI Prolife Tower, 1089 Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400025 through its Managing Director.

2.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager Rani Talab, Jind.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Sandeep Lathar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. This Order will dispose of Appeal 590/2015 filed by Dharampal Singh Katariya–complainant for modification of the order 12.09.2014 and Appeal No.1039/2014 filed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, whereby the complaint of the complainant–Dharampal Singh Katariya has been allowed by granting the following relief:-

“Hence, the complaint is accepted. Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount i.e. Rs.1,57,591/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the order of this complaint.  In case of failure, the opposite parties will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 02.08.2013 till its full realization of amount.”

2.         Briefly stated, Complainant-Dharampal Katariya had purchased one Life Insurance Policy on 01.04.2002 for a term of 11 years vide policy No.00128277 from the OPs. The complainant had paid yearly premium of Rs.10,174/- to the OPs time to time and the policy got matured on 31.03.2013. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs were required to release the maturity value of Rs.1,57,591/- to the complainant after its date of maturity. But, the OPs had changed the mode of payment of the policy and converted the same into pension scheme policy, which was not opted by the complainant. As, the complainant did not accept the same, and wanted the whole maturity amount in lumpsum, he approached the District Forum by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly he filed the complaint claiming Rs.1,57,591/- with interest alongwith damages for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.

3.      OPs contested the complaint by pleading that the complainant upon receipt of the policy documents had the option to return the policy under the provision of free look as per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Regulations, 2002 within 15 days from the receipt of the policy. But the complainant did not submit the free look request within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents. The OP never received any request from the complainant prior to the vesting date for surrender of the policy and that is why they sent an annuity quotation form to the complainant to exercise the annuity option and submit the same duly filled. The complainant failed to submit his surrender request prior to the vesting date of the policy. All the allegations have been denied by the OPs.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.         The appellants, in cross appeals before us, have repeated their respective contentions, already raised before the District Forum, while the complainant has pressed for the enhancement of the compensation already awarded to him, the OPs have stressed for the total dismissal of the complaint.  

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. So far as the appeal of the complainant Dharampal Katariya is concerned, it is miserably barred by time i.e. 270 days. In fact this has been filed as an after thought, much after the filing of the appeal by the OPs. The affidavit filed by him in support of the application for condonation of delay is not convincing at all. Despite that we have chosen not to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay as on merits we do not find any force in the same.

6.      Coming to the appeal filed by the OPs, it is evident on record that the insurance company has acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was under the ICICI PRU FOREVER LIFE (REGULAR PENSION) Plan, which is an unit linked insurance pension plan, wherein apart from investment in the market there is life cover for the investor. Under this plan, on the maturity of the policy, an option is provided to the insured to submit his desired option for availing of the vested benefit i.e. asking for a part or whole commutation of the maturity amount. According to the terms and conditions of this policy, the OPs – appellants invited the option of the complainant on 11.03.2013 before 01.04.2013 on which date the policy would get automatically vested. Since, the complainant did not respond to this communication of the OPs, they had no option left and resultantly the policy went in to automatic pension plan, and a periodic pension accrued to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, this policy as already mentioned above was a Unit Linked Pension Policy, which was in the nature of profit earning transaction; the complaint did not fall under the definition of consumer dispute. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 23^rd April 2013, ‘unit based insurance policy’ is commercial transaction and one cannot be considered as consumer.

7.      Consequently we find merit in the appeal No.1039/2014 filed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance and accept the same by setting aside the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the complainant No.590/2015 alongwith his complaint before the District Forum stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.             The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No. 1039 of 2014 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

 

March 14th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.