DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Gian Chand Gupta, Advocate (H.No.1362, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh at the time of issuance of policies).  Present Address :- H.No.3358, Sector 51-D (Chandigarh Police Society), Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, ICICI PruLife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, India through its Managing Director;

2.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, SCO 9-11, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager

3.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the OPs

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Gian Chand Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

          “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be summoned and may be directed to pay the balance amount after deducting Rs.15,795.36 out of Rs.50,000/- for the first policy and Rs.6,396.99 out of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest and the costs of this litigation.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased two life time super pension policies from the opposite parties.   The first policy was taken on 12.9.2006 having premium of Rs.50,000/- per year and the second policy was taken on 22.1.2007 having premium of Rs.25,000/- per year. 

                   According to the complainant, he could not deposit the next installments as a result whereof opposite party No.1 issued cheque dated 26.11.2009 of Rs.15,795.36 in respect of the first policy and cheque dated 4.2.2010 of Rs.6,396.99 in respect of the 2^nd policy.  However, according to the complainant he was entitled to the refund of the entire amount.  Therefore, he submitted representation to the opposite parties on 24.3.2011 for refund of the entire amount but to no effect.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the written statement filed by opposite parties, it has been admitted that the policies in question were issued to the complainant.  It has been pleaded that the complainant did not approach them during the free look period with regard to any dis-satisfaction. 

                   According to the opposite parties, the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the policies by not paying the premiums.  It has been pleaded that as the complainant did not revive his policies within the stipulated period, therefore, as per clause 10 of the policy terms, the policies were foreclosed and the amount payable was paid to the complainant which has also been encashed by him.

                   According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           The opposite parties have placed on record the policy document.  Clause 4 deals with surrender and the relevant part thereof reads as under :-

“Surrender.

The policy acquires a surrender value after payment of full premium for the first policy year.  However, the surrender value would be payable only after completion of three policy years or whenever the policy is surrendered thereafter. The surrender value payable is the Fund value after deducting the following surrender charges.

(a)             Applicable surrender charges where three full years’ premiums have not been paid.

          XXX                      XXX                      XXX”

6.                           According to the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties admittedly the complainant himself defaulted in the payment of premium.  It has been argued by the ld. Counsel that in compliance with the aforesaid clause they have already refunded the due amount to the complainant through cheque dated 26.11.2009 of Rs.15,795.36 and cheque dated 4.2.2010 of Rs.6,396.99.  According to the ld.  Counsel, the opposite parties are not liable to pay anything. 

7.                           On the other hand, it is not the case of the complainant that he did not receive the policy documents or that the amount refunded to him is not as per the policy terms and conditions.  The contention of the complainant is that he was required to be refunded the full amount by the opposite parties.  However, he has not been able to place on record any document under which he can be allowed the said relief. 

8.                           Thus, the complainant has not been able to prove that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER