Haryana

Ambala

CC/140/2011

JAGAN NATH BHOLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE AMBALA CITY - Opp.Party(s)

V.P KAUSHAL

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

             Complaint Case No.    : 140 of 2011

Date of Institution       : 06.05.2011

            Date of Decision         : 30.12.2016

Jagan Nath Bhola son of Shri Kanshi Ram R/o H.No.4000, Hill Road, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt.                                                                                               

……Complainant.

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. V.P. Kaushal, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. D.S. Maan, Adv. for Op.  

ORDER.

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that  son of complainant namely late Shri Gaurav Bhola got himself insured with the Op for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- vide policy no. 03468337 under plan Life Time Super Policy and as per the policy,  his son was entitled  for double  of the amount  on account of natural death  and in case of road accident, he was  entitled for  the amount double of the amount insured i.e. maturity amount to be paid to the policy holder.   It has been submitted that  complainant being  father of policy holder is entitled  for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs on account of untimely death of his son due to fatal injuries suffered in an accident on 08.05.2010.   It has also been submitted that though  policy holder surrendered the policy with the OP on 26.04.2010 and the amount against the said policy was to be issued /released within a period of one week but the OP had failed to release the amount and in the meantime during  the period of said policy, the policy holder  died on  08.05.2010 and the complainant being nominee  of the policy holder become entitled for the release of double of the insured amount  besides  other benefits as provided under the policy.   As per complainant he informed  the death of his son  and submitted the claim on account of death of policy holder immediately but the OP cleverly issued a cheque of Rs.82870/- instead of Rs.5.00 lacs and has wrongly withheld the remaining amount without explaining any reason.  Complainant has submitted that after receiving the said cheque under protest, the complainant approached the OP and requested them to release the amount of his claim, but they remained putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other and  finding no other way complainant  got issued a legal notice dated 21.12.2010 which received by  the OP but the OP neither replied  the said notice nor release the legal and valid claim. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Op appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that  entitlement as alleged  by complainant would be available only if the policy would have been in existence on the date of death.  In the present case,  policy was surrendered on  26.04.2010 and  under the said policy the sum assured was only Rs.1,25,000/- and not Rs.2.50 lacs as alleged by the complainant. Further it has been submitted that before the death of son of complainant  on 08.05.2010,  the policy holder had already made a request for surrendering  the policy on 26.04.2010 which was duly surrendered on 28.04.2010 and  therefore cheque dated 28.04.2010 was issued to the   complainant and the same has been encashed.  Thus the policy was not in existence at the time of  death of complainant’s son and by no stretch of imagination the allegations  made by the complainant can be taken into consideration. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove her version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op tendered affidavit Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-4 and closed evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  Case of the complainant is that  under the policy taken by his son Gaurav Bhola, in case of death of life assured,  nominee  would be entitled for double of the insured amount which in this case is Rs.2.50 lacs and thus the complainant being nominee  in the policy is entitled for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs but the OP has release him an amount of Rs.82,870.87 paise only. Counsel for complainant argued that the cheque of Rs.82870.87p has been received by complainant after the death of policy holder, so, the complainant is entitled to full benefit of the policy.  

                        On the  other hand,  arguments of the counsel for OP is that  before the death of life assured Gaurav Bhola, he made a request for surrendering  the policy on 26.04.2010 which was duly surrendered on 28.04.2010 and  therefore a cheque of Rs.82870.87 dated 28.04.2010 (Anneuxre C-5) was issued to the complainant and the same has been encashed.  Thus the policy was not in existence at the time of  death of complainant’s son on 08.05.2010, as such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and they released the surrender value of the policy as per terms & conditions of the policy.

5.                     Perusal of document Annexure R-1 reveals that the life assured Gaurav Bhola insured himself with Op on 25.09.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for a term of 10 years.  It is admitted case of the complainant that  policy holder during his life time surrendered the policy with the OP insurance company on 26.04.2010 i.e. before maturity period of 10 years of the policy and policy holder died on 08.05.2010 due to roadside accident as per report of PMR (Annexure C-8).  The version of complainant that he has received the cheque so issued by Op after the death of policy holder and thus complainant is entitled to all the benefits of the policy is not tenable since the cheque has been issued by the OP on 28.04.2010 much prior to the death of policy holder Gaurav Bhola who died on 08.05.2010 but receiving of the same by complainant allegedly on  20.05.2010 there may some delay on the part of postal/courier authorities but for that reason, OP cannot be held  deficient in providing

proper services to the complainant and thus the arguments of the counsel for complainant is of no worth to their case.  Counsel for Op has drawn our attention towards policy document/terms & conditions of the insurance policy, clause 4 of which says as under:-

                                                4. GUARANTEED SURRENDER VALUE:

If premiums are paid for at least three consecutive years, the policy acquires a surrender value which is equal to thirty five percent of the premiums paid, excluding the premiums paid during the first years of the policy, all extra premiums  paid and the premiums paid for the supplementary benefits. The cash value of the guaranteed additions and vested bonuses will also be allowed. The Policy which has acquired a surrender value can be surrendered. The surrender shall extinguish all the rights, benefits and interest under the policy.  

                        In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant has deposited half yearly premium of Rs.12,500/- till 25.03.2009 and thereby deposited a sum of Rs.75000/- with the Op insurance company as premium.  In this case, policy holder during his life time surrendered the policy and in lieu of that OP offered a cheque dated 28.04.2010 amounting to Rs.82870.87p. to the policy holder which has been accepted by the complainant and the same has been encashed. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief qua death benefit of the policy holder because Mr. Gaurav-policy holder himself surrendered the policy during his life time for taking the surrender value and the OP has accepted the offer of policy holder and send the cheque dated 28.04.2010 in the name of policy holder but it does not make any effect whether the cheque has been received by the complainant after death of the policy holder.  Thus the OP has rightly send surrender value of the policy to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Op.  Accordingly, we do not find any force in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED ON:  30.12.2016                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                      (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER