Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1037/2019

Shiv Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.P. Rana

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1037/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/11/2019
Date of Decision	:	04/10/2022

 

Shiv Karan Singh S/o Late Sh.Sher Singh, R/o House No.83, First Floor, Sector 33, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office Prulife Tower, 1089 Apparahab Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, SCO 1-2-3 above KFC, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
3. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Branch Sector 32, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.R.P.Rana, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Tushar Arora, Counsel for OP No.3.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is having his Bank Account in ICICI Bank and OP No.1 & 2 is subsidiary company of ICICI Bank and therefore, employees of OP No.2 were sitting in the office of OP No.3 for convincing the customer to get investment plan from OP No.2. The complainant accepted the investment plan of OP No.2 in January 2013, in favour of his son and has paid Rs.1 lac through cheque to the OP No.2, but the complainant did not receive any policy document from OP No.1 & 2 and it is only he received the receipt dated 16.01.2014 from OP No.2 showing consolidated receipt statement from 02.01.2014 to 02.01.2015 (Annexure C-1).

         Thereafter, the complainant went to make inquiry from OP No.2 on 06.04.2015 in its office that he had not received policy document for his investment plan till date and Ms.Sarika Arora Officer in the office of OP No.2 stated that his policy document has been sent to the complainant at his address, and alleged that same stands delivered to Madhu. The complainant informed her that there is no such person known to him as such he had not received policy document till date. Ms. Sarika Arora told him regarding his investment plan and she informed him that his investment term is for 15 years and the same is not unit linked. The complainant had taken investment plan for five years and he was to pay for three annual installment of Rs.1 lac per year and he will get matured amount alongwith better returns after five years.  Copy of application dated 06.04.2015 and receipt of application are annexed as Annexure C-2 & C-3.  The complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman for the refund of money alongwith interest on 27.01.2019. OP No.2 finally refused to pay the money on 26.01.2019 by sending a message that only Rs.3 and 43 paise is payable to the complainant. Further Insurance Ombudsman vide his letter dated 12.02.2019 informed the complainant that matter is not falling within the purview of Insurance Ombudsman adjudication. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, it is submitted that the allegation of the complainant is that the complainant came to know only in 2015 that a different product was issued to him, even then the period of limitation commences from 2015. The policy was terminated/ foreclosed on 02.01.2016 due to non-payment of renewal premiums. The complainant has filed the present complaint only in the year October 2019 i.e., much beyond the 2 years of statutory limitation period as enumerated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that the subject policy was issued as per mandate submitted by the complainant in the proposal form (Exhibit R-1). Thus as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy as per mandate, the subject policy had a policy term of 15 years where the complainant was required to pay a total annual premium of Rs.99,997/- for a premium payment term of 7 years. The complainant only paid the first annual premium under the subject policy and thereafter the answering OP did not receive any further renewal annual premiums from the complainant. As per Clause 3 (iv) of the applicable terms and conditions of the subject policy, the premium is not paid within such grace period during the first three policy years, the policy shall lapse and no benefits would be payable under the policy(Exhibit R-2). On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     OP No.3 appeared through their counsel who made statement on 06.03.2020 that no reply/ evidence is to be filed on behalf of OP No.3 as the claim is against OP No.1 & 2 only.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     On perusal of the records of the case, it is observed that the said policy/investment plan was issued on 02.01.2013 and the same was dispatched by the OPs on 07.01.2013 by the Blue Dart. It is also observed that the complainant raised the issue regarding refund of premium only on 06.04.2015, i.e., after more than two years three months from the date of issue of policy. The main allegation of the complainant is that, as he did not receive the policy, so he contacted the office of OPs, after a period of more than two years, and observed that the different plan was given to him, than the one he requested.

         The complainant himself in para 3 of his complaint admitted that the complainant had taken an investment plan for 5 years and he was to pay for 3 annual installment of Rs.1 lakh per year, but it is not understand as to why he has not deposited the installment, after one year. We have gone through the mandate submitted by the complainant in the proposal form, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the subject policy term was 15 years and premium payment term is mentioned as seven years. It is observed that the complainant paid the first premium only and failed to honour the contractual obligation under the policy.

8.     On perusal of the documents, it is observed that the complainant had approached the company on 05.02.2013 for correcting the details in the proposal, but the complainant did not raise any grievance regarding premium payment term. Hence, we are of the view, if the complainant had not received the policy document, he would not have approached the company to correct the details. Moreover, it is also observed that, the complainant was holding many other policies of the OP and being an educated person, it is presumed that he would have been well aware of the terms and condition of the policy/contract in question.
9.     The terms of the policy/contract are very important. It is a contract between the parties. Both the parties are expected to abide by the terms of insurance/contract. In United Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 4974, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 observed that, "It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment."
10.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove the case and due to his own act of negligence failed to pay the renewal premium & allowed the policy to foreclose.  
11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
04/10/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member