Date of Filing: 20/07/2011

        Date of Order: 14/09/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 14^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1339 OF 2011

Sri. G. Sundara,

S/o. Late Gurunanjappa,

Presently R/at: No.787,

12^th Main, 1^st Cross,

HAL 2^nd Stage, Indiranagar,

BANGALORE-560 008.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri. N.Kiran)                                                 Complainant.

-V/s-

(1) ICICI Prudential Life

Insurance Company Limited,

ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089,

Appasaheb Mrathe Marg, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai-400 025.

Rep. by its M.D.

(2) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance

Company Limited, The Ascent,

No.28, 2^nd Floor, Opp: Camp Fort,

Old Airport Road/Murugeshpalya,

Airport Road, Bangalore-560 075.

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.K.Subha Ananthi)                                 Opposite parties.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/-, are necessary:-

The agent/representative of the opposite party by name Sri. Hussain approached the complainant and stated to him that, if the complainant subscribes for Cash Plus Policy in the name of his daughter he has to pay an annual premium of Rs.10,000/- for first five years, and from the 6^th year up to 10^th year he has to pay Rs.5,000/-, 4,000/-, 3,000/-, 2,000/- & 1,000/- respectively.  In total Rs.65,000/- for 10 years and thereafter from 11^th to 15^th years the complainant is eligible to get periodic returns on the said policy in a sum of Rs.1,000/-, 2,000/-, 3,000/-, 4,000/- and 5,000/- and finally with entire amount + insurance policy + amount.  The complainant paid for the 1^st five years Rs.10,000/- each in all Rs.50,000/-.  On the 6^th year when the complainant approached and tried to pay Rs.5,000/- the opposite party refused to receive the same and demanded Rs.10,000/- and said it has to be paid up to 15 years at the rate of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence the complainant sought cancellation of the policy and return all the amount, but the opposite party has stated that the complainant’s request for alternative policy is approved and the complainant should pay premium on the new policy.  Even for this the complainant is running from pillar to post.  Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party on 11.01.2011 to which the opposite party neither replied nor complied.  Hence the compliant.

2.        In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

            The policy was received by the complainant on 26.12.2005 hence the complaint is barred by time.  The complainant had purchased policy “Regular Premium Plan” according to which he has to pay Rs.10,000/- each for 15 years that is evident from Clasue-39(2)(a) of the policy.  Clause-5(1)(i), Clause-16(2), Clause-4(1) of the policy mandates the terms of the policy.  The assurance given by the agent is of no consequences, such assurance will not bind the opposite party.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their affidavits and documents.  The opposite party has filed written arguments.  The arguments were heard.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. Whether the compliant is barred by time?
3. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A) to (C):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (C):-

6.        Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased Cash Plus Policy in the name of his daughter S. Buvaneshwari and received policy on 17.12.2005.  The policy was for 15 years.  Hence the contention that the policy has been received on 26.12.2005 the complaint filed in the year 2011 is barred by time is an untenable contention.  Policy is issued in the year 2005 and the complainant had paid up to 27.12.2010 the premium of the policy, so cause of action with respect to the policy as the dispute arose in 2010, the cause of action arises in the year 2010 and the complaint is filed on 2011 is not barred by time.  It is well within time.

7.        It is an undisputed fact that as per the terms of the policy the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- each for five years that is Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant has stated and sworn to thus:-

“The complainant herein above states that under the assistance of your company agent/representative by the name of Mr. Hussain, he subscribed for Cash Plus Policy of your company in the name of his daughter Ms. S. Buvaneshwari, the complainant was the proposer for his daughter, as per the terms stated to by the OP representative, complainant was to pay a Annual Premium of Rs.10,000/- for the 1^st Five years, and from the 6^th year up to the 10^th year he would have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, 4,000/-, 3,000/-, 2,000/- & 1,000/- respectively totaling for the 10 year period a sum of Rs.65,000/- and thereafter from the 11^th to the 15^th year, finally the complainant would be eligible to get periodic returns on the said policy in a sum of Rs.1,000/-, 2,000/- 3,000/-, 4,000/-, & 5,000/- along with entire full amount + insurance policy + amount.”

This has not been specifically challenged or denied by the opposite party nor per contra Mr. Hussain the agent/representative of the opposite party has filed any affidavit denying the said statements made by the complainant on oath.  Mere assertion that the said statements of the Hussain will not bind the opposite party is an untenable contention.  As Mr. Hussain has promised and sold the policy stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.10,000/- for five years and from 6^th year to 10^th year he has to pay Rs.5,000/-, 4,000/-, 3,000/-, 2,000/- and 1,000/- and later the complainant will receive the benefits under the policy on that the complainant has signed and obtained the policy.  In these days of fastness the words of the agent will be believed and the complainant subscribed to the policy.  The written terms of the policy may state that the complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- every year for 15 years, but as promised by the agent that the complainant has to pay on Rs.10,000/- for five years he has paid and the 6^th year onwards when he went to the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as promised by Mr. Hussain it was refused that means the complainant was told by Hussain the agent/representative of the opposite party that whatever may be the terms in the policy he has to subscribe Rs.10,000/- for 5 years and for the remaining 5 years he has to pay Rs.5,000/-, 4,000/-, 3,000/-, 2,000/- and 1,000/-  and the complainant will receive the full policy amount on that the complainant has subscribed to the policy not otherwise.  There is nothing to disbelieve the same.  As per the terms agreed with Mr. Hussain the agent/representative of the opposite party the complainant obtained the said policy and for tendering the 6^th year in 2010 Rs.5,000/- which was refused even the opposite party’s Manager refused to receive it.  It is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  Hence under these circumstances, if we direct the opposite party to return the said amount we think that will meet the ends of justice.  No loss has been occurred to the opposite party.  The opposite party has received the money invested it in its other business, earned money whereas it has caused untold loss to the complainant.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 27.12.2007 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.        The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.

4.        The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th  Day of September 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT