DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.
Complaint No. 182/14
Instituted on: 19.08.2014
Decided on: 13.04.2015
Parminder Singh son of Narotam Singh, House No. B-XI/833, Street No.6, Bharat Nagar, K.C. Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Barnala, College Road, Office concerned with HDFC Bank, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Stanrose House, 4th Floor, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri K.R.Goyal, Advocate.
For OPs : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Karnail Singh, Member
Vandna Sidhu, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Parminder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Jashandeep Singh son of the complainant purchased policies bearing number 13732505 and 14342131 with a term of 10 years with annual of premium of Rs.50,000/- from the OPs through their agent Shri Ajay Kumar at Barnala. It is further averred that Shri Jashandeep Singh (referred to as DLA in short) was working as electrician with a contractor and the DLA died on 29.11.2013 due to electric shock. It is further averred that after the death of the DLA, the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the OPs paid only the sum assured of both the policies, but no fund value was paid. It is further averred that the complainant sent letter dated 18.3.2014 to the OPs to release the fund value of the policies, but all in vain. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- relating to the fund value of both the policies is lying with the OPs, which has not been paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as fund value of policies along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the DLA had purchased the policies in question after going through the terms and conditions of the proposal form, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, that the due claim has already been paid by the OPs to the complainant. It is further stated that the Ops after careful evaluation of the records, has already paid the claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each for both the policies vide NEFT mode in the State Bank of Patiala, account number 65000427700 on 22.2.2014 and 28.2.2014 as per applicable terms and conditions. It is further stated that as per clause 2.4 of the terms and conditions of the policies that in the unfortunate death of life assured during the term of the policy, the company shall pay the nominee the higher of sum assured and fund value. It is further stated that the complainant has not acted in good faith with respect and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, issuance of the policies in question to the DLA have been admitted. It is further stated that the Op after careful evaluation of the records has already paid the claim amount to the complainant through NEFT on 22.2.2014 and 28.2.2014. It is further stated that since the fund value of the policies was less than the sum assured, as such, the OPs have already paid the sum assured to the complainant. It is further stated that this clearly shows the bonafide on the part of the OPs which paid the higher amount to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of brochure, Ex.C-3 copy of policy, Ex.C-4 copy of premium receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 28.5.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of policy cover, Ex.C-7 copy of premium receipt, Ex.C-8 copy of letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit of Gurjeet Singh, Ex.OP-2 copy of form, Ex.OP-3 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 28.5.2014, Ex.OP-5 copy of reconsideration letter, Ex.OP-6 copy of form and closed evidence.
4. We have perused the pleadings, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is an admitted fact that the DLA Shri Jashandeep Singh had purchased two insurance policies bearing number 13732505 and number 14342131 against which the premium of Rs.50,000/- per year was to be paid and the DLA had paid the premium for three years. It is also not in dispute that the DLA died on 29.11.2013 and thereafter the complainant/nominee lodged the claim with the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the OPs have already paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each for both the policies vide NEFT mode in the State Bank of Patiala, account number 65000427700 on 22.2.2014 and 28.2.2014. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have withheld the fund value amount of both the policies, which is alleged to be a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Ops have no right to withheld the fund value amount as it has been clearly mentioned in clause 2.4 of the policy that the fund value amount is also payable in case of death of the DLA.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the Ops have already settled the claim of the complainant and have further paid the claim amount against both the policies of the DLA i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- each for both the policies vide NEFT mode in the State Bank of Patiala account number 65000427700 on 22.4.2014 and 28.2.2014 as per the applicable terms and conditions. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that as per the clause 2.4 of the policy i.e. ‘death benefit’, it has been clearly mentioned that in the unfortunate event of death before maturity, the nominee will receive higher of the sum assured (reduced by amounts of partial withdrawals) and the fund value. Guaranteed NAV with not be applicable. The learned counsel for the Ops has vehemently further contended that in the present case, since the fund value was Rs.1,37,288.97 against policy number 13732505 and Rs.138353.80 against policy number 14342131, which was less than the sum assured against both the policies, which was Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the ops that as such the Ops have already paid the sum assured (which was higher one) to the complainant against both the policies in question and has contended that payment of fund value does not arise at all. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the claim amount under both the policies have been paid strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. We have also perused the copies of letters dated 28.5.2014, which are on record Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-8, in which it has been clearly mentioned that as per clause 2.4 ‘Death Benefit’, in the unfortunate event of death of Life Assured during the term of the policy, the Ops shall pay the nominee higher of the sum assured and fund value, which means that either of sum assured and fund value whichever is higher is payable to the nominee in case of unfortunate death of life assured. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the Ops were liable to pay only one amount, which is higher of two i.e. sum assured or fund value. As discussed above, in the present case, the higher amount was the sum assured under both the policies, as such, the Ops have already paid the assured amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the complainant against both the policies on 22.2.2014 and 28.2.2014 through NEFT mode. Accordingly, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
7. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 13, 2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
