BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 325 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 23.11.2015.
Date of Order: 28.02.2019.
Shyam Lal Sharma, care of Yadav Service Station, Gali No. 1, Tosham Bye-Pass, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered office ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025, through its M. D./Manager/Chairman.
2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, branch office at Circular Road, near Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri H. S. Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief fact of the case are that complainant has purchased policy/bond bearing No. 04510446 on 14.2.2007 under scheme of Life Time Super Pension and the premium of the said policy was Rs. 2500/- per month. It is alleged that the complainant has paid regular monthly premium and has paid 36 installments alongwith prevailing market rate of interest as & when demanded by the OPs and deposited total amount of Rs.96,000/-. It is further alleged that now the complainant is leading retired life and is suffering from several ailments like B.P., Sugar and other diseases permanently and is unable to perform his work in routine manner and as such is not in a position to keep his aforesaid policy and his sons are still unemployed and his financial position is also not so sound. It is further alleged that the complainant has approached the OP No. 2 several times with a request to surrender the policy and refund the deposited amount alongwith interest, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the complainant has then got served a legal notice to the OPs on 4.6.2014 through his counsel, upon which the OP No. 1 has sent his reply asking the complainant to approach the OP No. 2 for surrender of policy and they also assured for payment of full insured amount alongwith interest. It is further alleged that the complainant has surrendered the policy with the branch office at Bhiwani, but OPs have issued a cheque of Rs.53,650/- after deduction of 40% amount, which is wrong, illegal and against the principal of natural justice. It is further alleged that at the time of the issuance of the policy/bond the employee/agent of the OPs never disclosed/read over the terms & conditions of the policy/bond and they mislead the innocent person just to sell out their policy/bond. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OPs appeared and filed the contested written statement. It is alleged that after receipt of the proposal form, benefit illustrations and supporting documents age proof, address proof etc., issued the policy to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant paid only 35 renewal premiums and not 36, as alleged by him in the complaint and thereafter did not pay any premium at all. It is further alleged that hence the policy did not complete 3 years. It is further alleged that the complainant himself surrendered the policy on 9.8.2014 and accordingly he was paid 40% of the Fund Value after deduction of 60% of Surrender Charges & other requisite deductions, as per the surrender clause 4 (a) of the policy. It is further alleged that the complainant has created the story of his own which is based on his conjecture and surmises and he has failed to produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate his false story. It is further alleged that the OPs have acted strictly as per plan chosen by the complainant in the proposal form and at the time of surrender, as per the terms of the Policy. It is further alleged that the allegations of the complainant is utterly false on the face of it and clearly contrary to the documents on record. It is further alleged that the OPs had sent the policy documents to the communication address mentioned in the proposal form on 20.2.2007 and he had ample opportunity to go through and understand the terms & conditions of the policy including the benefits payable clause, premium paying term, foreclosure and surrender clauses. It is further alleged that terms & conditions clearly stated the implication of non-payment of premium. It is further alleged that the complainant has retained the policy documents and did not approach the company with any discrepancies regarding premium payment, premium frequency, fund value and the policy terms & conditions, neither did he approach the company for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period thereby implying that he had agreed to all the terms & conditions of the policy. It is further alleged that the total amount of premium received under the policy is Rs.87,500/- and not 96,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant had himself surrendered the policy on 9.8.2014 and accordingly he was paid 40% of the Fund Value after deduction of 60% of the Surrender Charges and other requisite deductions. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. The complainant to prove his case placed on record the affidavit as Mark A and the documents Annexure C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record Annexure RW1 and R2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties at length and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as he has miserably failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is admitted fact that the complainant has surrendered the policy in question and the OPs has paid him the surrender value of the policy as per the policy condition No. 4(a). The plea taken by the complainant is that he has deposited Rs.96,000/- in 36 monthly installments. In our view, the plea taken by learned counsel for the complainant has no substance, because the amount of 36 installments each of Rs.2500/- comes to Rs.90,000/- and not Rs.96,000/-. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record even a single receipt of payment of installments of the policy in question to prove his case. The onus to prove the payment of 36 installments is upon the complainant, but the complainant has failed in doing so. Mere making pleadings that the complainant paid 36 installments is not sufficient, the complainant has to prove this fact by adducing some cogent & convincing documentary evidence, but he failed to do so. It is mention here that the complainant has himself has surrendered the policy and OPs have made the payment of surrender value of the policy in question to the complainant without any delay, as per the policy clause No.4 (a). So, the plea taken by the complainant has no merit in the eyes of law and the same are hereby rejected.
6. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the OPs have legally and rightly paid the surrender value of the policy in question to the complainant, as per the policy clause No.4 (a). Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and as such, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 28.02.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
