Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/145/2020

Sh. Nitin Gupta, Regional Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi Chinnikrishna - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Chandan Singh

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 / 2020

 

1.       Sh. Nitin Gupta, Regional Manager

          ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited

          1^st Floor, Above Punjab National Bank, Ranipur More

          Haridwar, Uttarakhand

 

2.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited

          Raheja Tipco Plaza, Rani Sati Marg

          Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097

…… Appellants / Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi Chinnikrishna W/o Lt. Col. Arun Kumar Chinnikrishna

R/o 249-250, Deep Ganga Apartments, P-2, SIDCUL

Haridwar, Uttarakhand – 249 403

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. M.P. Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

Respondent – In person

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                       Member-II

                             

Dated: 05/08/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 243 of 2017; Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi Chinnikrishna Vs. Sh. Nitin Gupta, Regional Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellants – opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 81,620.34/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 06.09.2017, i.e., the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, on 18.12.2015, the respondent – complainant had obtained an insurance policy, namely, ICICI Pru Elite Wealth II for assured sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-.  The annual premium under the policy was Rs. 5,00,000/-.  The term of the insurance policy was 10 years’ and the premium payment term was 5 years’.  As per the policy document received by the complainant, there was no nomination.  At the time of applying for the policy, the complainant had requested that her grandson Sh. Kieran Kabir be made as nominee under the policy.  The complainant had told that if the nomination is not allowed by the insurance company, she will not invest in the policy in question.  However, the nomination was not allowed by the insurance company, whereupon the complainant approached the local authorities of the insurance company on 26.12.2015 for cancellation of the insurance policy during “Free Look” period.  The insurance company instead of cancelling the insurance policy, asked the complainant to submit the nomination form, assuring her that nomination would be done.  But no action was taken at the end of the insurance company for making correction in the insurance policy.  The complainant visited the Regional Office of the insurance company situated at Haridwar and asked Sh. Nitin Gupta – appellant No. 1 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission) to immediately cancel the insurance policy.  The appellant No. 1 told the complainant to continue with the insurance policy, stating that it was within his domain to get the nomination entered and registered.  The complainant was asked to submit handwritten request for nomination of her grandson, which was duly done.  After few months’, the complainant came to know that there was still no nomination under the policy.  The complainant submitted a complaint with the insurance company on 24.04.2016 and 30.04.2016, but in vain.  The complainant again asked for cancellation of the insurance policy.

 

3.       On 02.07.2016, the complainant received a revised policy in replacement of the initial one.  After exchange of correspondence, the complainant approached the IRDAI and Ombudsman, who decided to refund the premium to the complainant.  An Advance Discharge Voucher was received by the complainant from the insurance company asking for her signatures on the same.  The refunded amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- included the amount of Rs. 4,81,620.34/- invested in the share market by the insurance company on behalf of the complainant for a period of nine months’ along with non-refundable charges of Rs. 18,379.66/-.  The complainant made a complaint regarding misappropriation of growth on her investment and subsequent interest having been not paid to her.  The insurance company has committed deficiency in service.  Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

 

4.       The appellants filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was provided a free look period of 15 days’ from the date of receipt of the policy to cancel the policy, in case there is any discrepancy in the terms of the policy.  The insurance policy document along with copy of the proposal form and benefit illustration was dispatched on 01.01.2016 through Blue Dart courier, which was received by the complainant on 08.01.2016.  The complainant approached the appellants, for the first time, on 18.01.2016 for re-print of welcome kit, which request was processed and welcome kit was handed over to the complainant.  Inspite of receipt of the policy, the complainant failed to approach the appellants during the free look period, making any grievance with regard to proposal form or terms and conditions of the policy, hence the complainant is now estopped from raising any grievance or issue relating to the policy or its terms and conditions.  The complainant was duly informed that the nomination is not possible as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, as the life assured and policyholder are different persons.  The insurance company, purely as a goodwill gesture and looking at the complainant’s age, decided to refund the entire premium of Rs. 5,00,000/- without deducting any amount / charges.  The insurance company conveyed the same to the complainant through e-mail dated 24.08.2016 and sent an Advance Discharge Voucher to be filled and signed by the complainant.  The said amount was refunded towards full and final settlement under the policy, extinguishing the right of the complainant to claim any further amount.  The insurance company received the duly signed discharge voucher from the complainant on 26.08.2016, declaring that she will not claim any further amount whatsoever under the policy.  As such, sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 31.08.2016.

 

5.       The complainant approached the insurance company on 12.05.2017, i.e., after nine months’ and sought further interest and growth on investment.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the amount offered, she should not have signed the Advance Discharge Voucher.  The payment of growth was refused based on the duly filled and signed Advance Discharge Voucher by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

 

6.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.        

 

7.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and respondent present in person and perused the record.

 

8.       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim of respondent – complainant was settled by the insurance company in full and final satisfaction, hence the complainant is not entitled to any further amount.  His further submission is that the appeal should be allowed.

 

9.       Per contra, the respondent appearing in person submitted that the request for nominating her grandson as nominee in the insurance policy was wrongly refused by the insurance company.  Her further submission is that the refund of premium deposited in regard to the insurance policy in question, was made by the insurance company after a period of nine months’, that too after long harassment and she was under distress to receive her money and it was told to her that the insurance company is ready to refund her amount, hence she signed on the Advance Discharge Voucher without reading the contents thereof.  She has also submitted that the appeal has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be dismissed.               

 

10.     It is admitted fact that the complainant had submitted the proposal form on 17.12.2015 for purchase of ICICI Pru Elite Wealth II by payment of premium of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the insurance policy was issued on 18.12.2015.  It is also admitted fact that the free look period was provided by the insurance company to the insured to study the insurance policy, which was received by her on 17.01.2016.  It is further admitted fact that an e-mail was sent by the complainant to the insurance company on 27.03.2016, thereby seeking information whether any benefit is available under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the amount of premium paid under the policy, which was replied by the insurance company on 28.03.2016, stating that rebate upto Rs. 1,50,000/- is available under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant requested the insurance company on 24.04.2016 for nominating her grandson as nominee in the insurance policy, which was declined by the insurance company.  Thereafter, the complainant requested for cancellation of the insurance policy and sought refund of the premium paid.  It is also not in dispute that the amount of premium so deposited by the complainant under the insurance policy, was invested by the insurance company under growth scheme.  It is further admitted that the insurance company did not pay any growth rate or interest on the premium deposited by the complainant under the insurance policy.

 

11.     We find from the record that an e-mail dated 01.06.2016 was sent by Sh. Chittesha Sharma, Legal Officer of the insurance company through his e-mail i.d., i.e. chittesha.sharma@iciciprulife.com to Sh. Prabhat Khanna, Branch Operator, Branch Office Dehradun of the insurance company at his e-mail i.d., i.e., prabhat.khanna@iciciprulife.com, by which it was communicated that holder of a policy of life insurance may nominate such a person to whom he wants that the maturity amount of the policy may be paid.  Relevant portion of the aforesaid e-mail reads as under:

 

“39. (1) The holder of a policy of life insurance on his own life may, when effecting the policy or at any time before the policy matures for payment, nominate the person or persons to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death: Provided that, where any nominee is more, it shall be lawful for the policyholder to appoint any person in the manner laid down by the insurer, to receive the money secured by the policy in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee.”

 

12.     Accordingly, it is crystal clear that the complainant / policyholder could nominate her grandson in the insurance policy as a nominee, which request was wrongly refused by the insurance company, resulting into complainant’s request for cancellation of the insurance policy and seeking refund of the premium deposited.  If the premium deposited by the complainant in the insurance policy was invested by the insurance company in some growth fund, the complainant should have been paid the growth rate or interest on the said amount, whichever was admissible under the rules, but no growth rate or interest has been paid by the insurance company to the complainant.

 

13.     The only hurdle in the way of the complainant from receiving the growth rate or interest, is execution of Advance Discharge Voucher, voluntarily signed by the complainant.  We find from the record that an Advance Discharge Voucher dated 26.08.2016 has been voluntarily signed by the complainant without any protest or alike, in which it was declared that the insured has received a sum of            Rs. 5,00,000/- against the cancellation and refund of the premium amount paid under the said policy and she has further declared that she has no further claims whatsoever under the above policy.  Relevant portion of the Advance Discharge Voucher is reproduced below:

 

“I, Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Chinnikrishna hereby declare that I am in receipt of the Sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) against the cancellation and refund of the premium amount paid under the said policy.

 

I hereby declare that the said amount has been received by me in full and final discharge of all my claims under and in relation to the above-mentioned policy and that I have no further claims whatsoever under the above mentioned policy.”

 

14.     Thus, it is established from record that the complainant has received the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- against cancellation of insurance policy and refund of premium paid under the insurance policy and has voluntarily declared that she has no further claims whatsoever under the insurance policy.

 

15.     In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (4) CPR 96 (SC), the claim was finally settled by the insurer on 08.04.1994 and amount of Rs. 70,38,038/- was paid to the respondent on 08.06.1996, who received the amount and gave discharge.  It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the respondent could not raise a consumer dispute.  In the case of M/s Apna Surat Saree Centre Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2016 (1) CPR 297 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complainant can not raise further claim after signing discharge / settlement voucher in full and final settlement of claim.  In the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Chief Manager Vs. T. Gopal reported in 2015 (1) CPR 102 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complainant is estopped from making any further demand against insurance company after accepting any amount voluntarily in full settlement of all his claims.

 

16.     In the light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Hon’ble National Commission in the case of M/s Apna Surat Saree Centre (supra) & The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Chief Manager (supra), the respondent / complainant is estopped from making any further claim / demand against the insurance company after voluntarily signing the Advance Discharge Voucher in full and final settlement of the claim.

 

17.     For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission suffers from material illegality.  Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.

 

18.     Appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 243 of 2017 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  The amount deposited by the appellants with this Commission, be released in their favour.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                               President

 

K