DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO-182/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
03.04.2014 22.04.2014 05.04.2019
Complainant :- 1. Mr. Ajay Kumar Mahapatra,
S/o. Late Chittananda Mahapatra.
2. Ms. Smruti Smita Mahapatra,
D/o. Mr. Ajay Kumar Mahapatra,
Both are residing at EE-182, Flat No.9,
Salt Lake City, P.S. Bidhannagar(East),
Kolkata-700091.
=Vs=
Opposite Parties:- 1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
ICICI Prulife Tower, 1089, Appa Saheb Matathe
Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai- 400025.
2. The Manager- Customer Service,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
ICICI Prulife Tower, 1089, Appa Saheb Marathe
Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
1089, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi,
Mumbai-400025.
4. The Manager- Customer Service,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
230A, 3rd Floor, Chittrakut Building,
A.J.C. Bose Road, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, Kol-20.
PRESENT :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder…………………………………..Member.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………………………….Member.
Judgment
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The brief fact of the case of the complainants is that they had availed a Unit Linked Policy under ICICI Prulife Time Policy No. 02724834 from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company on 20.04.2006 by paying initial half yearly premium of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter paid more furthermore 4 polices premiums totaling to 5 half yearly premiums. Due to some unavoidable circumstances coupled with gross non-communication, non-guidance and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps – Insurance Company, the complainants had some difficulties in connection with the said policies and the complainants approached the O.Ps to grant them the surrendered value of the same by redemption of units. But surprisingly the O.Ps told since the locking period is for more than 5 years, the surrender value could not be given to them before the expiry of such period. The
Dictated and corrected by Contd/-2
C. C. NO-182/2014
:: 2 ::
complainants after expiry of locking period has also requested the O.Ps to grant them the surrendered value of the units allocated under the ULIP at NAV for non-continuance of the policy. The complainants as per the terms of insurance policy a single premium paid under ULIP accrued the surrender value by redemption of allocated units. In spite of several correspondences the O.Ps- Insurance Company did not disburse the surrender value of the allocated units. No steps were taken by the O.Ps Company. The O.Ps violated the guidelines of Insurance Company. The complainants issued advocates’ letters on 17.12.2012 and 27.01.2014 for compliance of the guidelines framed by IRDAI ( Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India). It was stated by the O.Ps- Insurance Company that the locking period is 5 years and it continues 3 years from the commencement of the policy then the insurance coverage shall cease immediately and the insurer may be given an opportunity to revive within the period allowed. But the insurance policy is not revived within the period and the surrendered value has not been paid at the end of locking period. The complainants are entitled to get the surrendered value at the end of locking period of 5 years.
The complainants have stated in the complaint that in the similar circumstances Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd and another policy No. 0031274605 with the date of commencement of 16.02.2007 has paid the surrendered value of the units allocated where the policy was dis-continued after payment of 2 years premium following the guidelines of IRDA. But in the instant case the O.Ps- Insurance Company is not granting the surrendered value to the complainant which is highly illegal and arbitrary. The O.Ps unnecessarily with-holding the surrendered value since 2010 along with compensation assessed at Rs.2,00,000/-. The O.Ps informed the complainants that the O.Ps are not liable to pay any surrendered amount to the complainants. It is well settled position of law that the insurance is a contract and it exists deficiency in service.
The complainants are entitled to get the surrendered value along with interest accrued thereon for unnecessarily withholding the surrendered value since 2010 in respect of ICICI Prulife Time Policy No. 02724834 along with compensation assessed Rs. 2,00,000/- for unnecessary harassing to the complainants. The compensation claimed by the complainants is justified due to discriminatory attitude of the O.Ps. The O.Ps adopted unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service.
As such the complainants has prayed for directing the O.Ps – Insurance Company to pay surrendered value along with interest accrued thereon in respect of policy under ICICI Policy Prulife Time Policy No. 02724834 availed by the complainants in the year 2005.
The complainants further prayed for directing upon the O.Ps to act in terms of the guidelines of IRDA and also to grant compensation to the complainants amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment. The complainants have further prayed cost and incidental charges.
The O.Ps have contested the case by way of filing W.V. In their preliminary objection the O.Ps have stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the
Dictated and corrected by Contd/-3
C. C. NO-182/2014
:: 3 ::
complaint as the policy in questioned is a Unit Linked Policy. The policy terms and conditions have been mentioned in the policy bond. As per policy contract there was a Free- Look period wherein the complainants may get review the policy document within 15 days. In that case the Insurance Company will return the premium. In the instant case the policy document was dispatched to the policy holders and the same was duly received and admitted. But the complainants never approached anything before the O.Ps about their grievances. The complainants got review/ cancel the policy within Free-Look period. The onus lies upon the complainants to the contents of the documents. Besides the instant policy, the complainants had purchased various policies from the O.P- Company and due to non-payment of renewal premiums two policies (one policy is related with this case) foreclosed under the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants were required to pay the regular premium on the due date or during the days of grace. In the instant case the complainants have paid the first year premium. No renewal premiums were paid. As per terms and conditions there was no amount payable which states in Clause 4(1) and 4(3). There was general condition under the terms and conditions of the policy under Clause (2) Revival of policy. Renewal premium was due on 22.04.2007. The O.Ps did not receive the renewal premiums. The revive benefit has also not taken up by the complainant. Practically insurance is a contract between the insurer and insured and both are bound by its terms and conditions. As such the complaint deserves out-rightly rejection.
The complainants have failed to show any deficiency in service of the O.Ps as enshrined in 2(g) of the C.P. Act. The Ld. Forum cannot pass any order in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants had malafide intentions to pay cost and harassment to the O.Ps. As such the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In support of the contention of the W.V filed by the O.Ps some case laws have been referred:-
- NCDRC, Ramlal Agarwal –Vs- Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Company Ltd (R.P. No. 658/2012) has referred the Hon’ble State Commission, Orissa in Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo –Vs- Bajaj Alianz Insurance Co. Ltd (F.A. No. 162/2010), (ii) NCDRC in Prema & Ors –Vs- Life Insurance Corporation of India, IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) and in Kishore Chandrakant Rathod –vs- Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors, (Revision petition No. 3390/2013, NCDRC), (iii) Pramod Kumar –Vs- SBI Life Insurance Co’ decided by DCDRF, (North- West) New Delhi, on 18.02.2014 (Case No. 935/2012), (iv) Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, in Mohan Lal Benal v/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd and Harish Kumar Chadha V/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd, (v) Shrikant Murlidhar Apte –Vs- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision petition No. 634/2012.
The complainants have filed evidence in chief by swearing affidavit in support of their claims. On the contrary Rina Kamath being Assistant Manager/Authorized Representative of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd
Dictated and corrected by Contd/-4
C. C. NO-182/2014
:: 4 ::
has filed the evidence in chief by swearing on affidavit on behalf of O.Ps. The complainants in support of their case filed the policy particulars along with policy document, though the complainants have stated that another four policies have been purchased by them but those policies have not been added in this case. The policy document shows that the insurance policy in question is related with a policy of complainant No.2 Ms. Smruti Smita Mahapatra and the name of the proposer has been made Complainant No.1 namely Ajay Kumar Mahapatra. The policy commencement date was 20.04.2006 and premium of it was Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Now on plain reading of the complaint, it appears to us that in the memorandum of the instant case it has been incorporated under the names of O.P. Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 through their addresses are the outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. It is palpably clear that this complaint did not file within territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum which admitted in the complaint. In our considered view, that the instant case has not been filed in proper Forum.
At the very outset of the complaint it appears that the policy in question is a regular premium Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy. Being Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy the policy holder has option to allocate the premiums and any Top Up Single Premium paid by him among one or more of the plan for purchase of unit thereof. The unit value has been mentioned in the policy document. It means the value per unit calculated in rupees in accordance with the following formula:-
Unit Value = Market/ Fair Value of the investments plus current Assets less Current Liabilities and provisions
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Number of Units outstanding under the relevant plan.
Therefore, the case of the complainants goes to show that complainants’ case is related with the Unit Linked Life Insurance Policies which are being speculative. The same was purchased by the complainants for commercial purpose. The profits from the said policy depends on market rate and with ups and down of the market price. The return amount/ profits differs. The complainants in our view purchased the policy for commercial purposes which are contrary to the complainants’ case. There is clause of policy document in 3.2 withdrawal benefit.
We have gone through the materials on record. On considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove their case. It can in no way be said that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. The complainants have failed to prove the allegations as made out in their complaint. Hence the complaint fails.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the complaint case being No. 182/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by
