Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/101/2021

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

Versus

Dr. Neeraj Nagpal, - Opp.Party(s)

Karandeep Singh Cheema , Gaurav Bhardwaj & Chetan Gupta (Adv.)

06 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	101 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	06.05.2022

 

1]  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.134-135-136, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager (presently office at :- SCO 1 & 2, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh).

2]  The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, No.21 Part, Khetan Bhavan, 1st Floor, Ek Omkar Premises CS Ltd. 198, Jamshediji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Manager Director.

                                                           …Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Dr.Neeraj Nagpal, resident of H.No.1184, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh                                                                                                                                                                                .…..Respondent/complainant

 

=============================================================

Appeal No.	:	102 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	06.05.2022

1]  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.134-135-136, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager (presently office at :- SCO 1 & 2, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh).

2]  The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, No.21 Part, Khetan Bhavan, 1st Floor, Ek Omkar Premises CS Ltd. 198, Jamshediji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Manager Director.

 

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Dr.Neeraj Nagpal, resident of H.No.1184, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh                                                                                                                                                                                          .…..Respondent/complainant

Present:-    

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Vijayinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    By this order, we propose to dispose of the afore-captioned appeals as common questions of law and facts have been originated therefrom.  The aforesaid appeals have been originated from one common order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.595 of 2018 and 596 of 2018. The following relief was granted by the District Commission in the said order dated 16.08.2021 :-

“9]       From the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed with direction to OPs to refund the entire premium amount deposited under the policy in question, along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 29.10.2018 till its payment. 

10]      Similarly, the connected consumer Complaint No.596 of 2018 -  ‘Dr.Neeraj Nagpal vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance & Anr.’ also stands allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the entire premium amount deposited under the policy in question, along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 29.10.2018 till its payment.

         The OPs are also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15,000/-, apart from the above awarded amount.”

                   Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same.

                   Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from First Appeal No.101 of 2021 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited & anr. Vs. Dr.Neeraj Nagpal.

2.           In the present case i.e. First Appeal No.101 of 2021, against  (CC/595/2018), before District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, it was the case of the respondent/complainant that the complainant was induced by the agent of the insurance Company to get a guaranteed saving insurance plan i.e. ICICI Pru Guaranteed Saving Plan, in which, the complainant has to pay premium only for 7 years and thereafter, he would get best returns.  After agreeing with the same, the complainant took the said insurance plan by making payment of first premium of Rs.49,200/-.  It was further stated that the complainant putting faith on the agent, signed the unfilled proposal form and other documents, which later on were filled by the agent. The complainant paid annual premium of Rs.49,200/- regularly for seven years and thereafter, visited the Company for refund of money with benefits thereon, but was shocked to know that the policy term is in fact 15 years.  It was also stated that the complainant was also apprised by the Company that in case he tried to get the refund under the policy after 7 years, he will only get 35% amount being the surrender value, which shows the mis-selling of the policy in question, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
3.            On notice being issued, the appellants/Opposite Parties while admitting the factual matrix of the case pleaded that policies were issued to the complainant, as proposed and duly signed by him.  It was stated that as per proposal forms, policies were proposed for a term of 15 years with a premium payment term of 7 years, annual payment besides all his personal details.  It was further stated that the policy term & premium paying term are explicitly stated in the application forms duly signed by the complainant when availing the policy.  It was further stated that the complainant, a practicing doctor by profession, verified the details stated in the proposal form before signing the same.  It was further stated that the complainant being a regular investor in insurance policies was aware of the necessity of reading & understanding the terms & conditions of the policies.  It was further stated that all the three policies opted in the year 2011, bearing No.16234259, No.15162147 & No.15880560, are in force, being paid, and to be mature in the year 2026 after 15 years of policy term. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4.           The parties led evidence, in support of their cases, before the respective District Commissions.
5.           We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record.
6.           In the aforesaid appeals, Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the policy term is for 15 years hence the maturity can be paid only after 15 years, as per Clause 2.1 of the policy terms. He further submitted that the complainant has the right to surrender the policy and receive the guaranteed surrender value as detailed in Clause 5 of the policy terms but he is not entitled to any refund of premium as directed by the District Commission. He further submitted that the claim is payable only as per the policy terms and conditions, which are clearly defined in the policy documents. He further submitted that nowhere in the emails, the complainant raised any sort of mis-selling allegations until May, 2017. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission allowing the consumer complaints are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside and that the complaints deserve dismissal.
7.           On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties is liable to be dismissed.
8.           The only point for consideration before us is as to whether the District Commission rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is very much clear from Annexure C-1 that the premiums are payable for the next 7 years and the policy will mature only after 15 years period. The plea taken by the appellants/Opposite Parties is that when it is clearly reflected in the policy document that the policy would mature after 15 years, then how the complainant is entitled for refund of the premium amount after 7 years ? It is the admitted fact that the complainant took the insurance policies from the Opposite Parties and paid premium of Rs.49,200/- regularly for seven years. In our considered opinion, that since in the present case, the complainant had sought only premium amount paid by him, which was paid regularly for seven years and by being aware of all the benefits under the said policy and as such, no prejudice has been caused to the insurance company. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the complainant is seeking his premium amount before the expiry date alongwith other benefits available under the policy in question. Had this been the case of the Opposite Parties, the matter would have been different. Even the Opposite Parties had utilized the said amount for a long period of seven years. Thus, we are of the view that the District Commission rightly held in para No.8 of the impugned order, which reads thus :-

“8]       Though it is a  fact that the policy document Ann.C-1 clearly states that the premiums are payable for the next 7 years and the policy will mature only after 15 years period, but the same document also gives an assurance to the customer/consumer about convenient  and responsive customer care.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid all the due premiums under the policy regularly for 7 years and the policy are in force. In our opinion, in case the consumer/complainant has, for some reason, decided to ask for the return of premium amount deposited by him against the policy, then the OP Company must not have any objection to that and it cannot compel the consumer/complainant to wait for maturity period of 15 years, to get his hard earned amount. The complainant/consumer is certainly entitled at least for the amount he deposited with the OP Company, especially after completion of premium paying term and by denying such genuine request of complainant, the OP Company remained grossly deficient in their services.  The complainant has suffered harassment due to deficient act of OPs. We are of the opinion that the burden and harassment so caused to the complainant was due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, so the complainant deserves to be compensated.”  

                    In view of the aforesaid order, we are of the view that the  Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

9.                In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

11.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in all the connected appeal files.

12.              The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

06.05.2022                                                                              Sd/-             

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER