STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2010 )

                                                                   Date of Institution: 07.01.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 15.10.2010.

Parkash Gupta w/o S.P. Kansal, r/o H.No. 405, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, through her husband S.P. Kansal.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1]       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor of ICICI Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2]       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Adv. for Appellant.

                    Sh.K.S. Cheema, Adv. for respondent.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                           This order will dispose off the following two appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 7.1.2010, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in two different complaints, whereby both the complaints were dismissed. Since the facts of both the cases are identical, the same are being decided through this common order:-

[i]      Appeal No. 67 of 2010– Parkash Gupta Versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

[ii]      Appeal No. 68 of 2010– S.P. Kansal Versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

2.                           Parkash Gupta – Appellant in Appeal No. 67 of 2010 is the wife of S.P. Kansal, who is the Appellant in Appeal No. 68 of 2010. Both of them purchased Life Time Pension-II policies from the OP-respondent. The annual premium of which was Rs.10,000/-. Their contention is that they were told that after payment of 04 installments, each of them would get Rs.43,549/- plus bonus, besides getting rebate in income tax. According to them, their signatures were obtained on different proposal forms and they also paid the amount of Rs.10,000/- each through different cheques. After  some time, each of them received the policy, but there were discrepancies in the terms and conditions thereof, because the policies issued were for 10 years, instead of 4 years. They brought the discrepancies to the notice of the OPs – Respondents, but they were told that they were at liberty to surrender the policy after a period of 4 years and would get guaranteed amount of Rs.43,549/- plus bonus. Each of them paid the premium of Rs.10,000/- every year for 4 years and thereafter, opted to surrender the policy, regarding which a surrender form was filled up. Instead of paying Rs.43,549/- plus bonus, they have been paid Rs.36,425/- each, payment of which also was delayed for about 2 months. The Complainants, therefore, prayed for the payment of Rs.43,549/- plus bonus, interest @18% p.a., Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and the cost of litigation.   

3.                           The OPs – Respondents opposed the complaints on the ground that the Complainants had opted for a 10 year policy, under which Rs.10,000/- was to be paid every year as premium. It was denied, if any assurance of a minimum sum of Rs.43,549/- was given to them. It was alleged that the Complainants could exercise the option of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days, which they did not, which means they accepted the terms and conditions of the policy and continued paying premium regularly. When they surrendered the policy, 100% of the value of the investments, was paid to them, which amounted to Rs.36,425/- each. It was alleged that the account number initially given by the Complainants was wrong, due to which there was delay in crediting the aforesaid amount in their account.     

4.                           Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                           After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the Complainants on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs – Respondents. The said orders have been challenged through these two separate appeals.

6.                           Since a similar question of law and facts is involved in both the appeals, the same are, therefore, being heard and disposed off through this common order.

7.                           We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 

8.                           In order to prove their contention that the Complainants were assured of the payment of Rs.43,549/-, the Complainants referred to the detailed illustration submitted by them, along with the rejoinder, in which the 10% investment rate was said to be 43,549/-. It is on this basis that the learned counsel for the Complainants argued that the Complainants were entitled to the minimum amount of Rs.43,549/-, after having paid premium for full 4 years. As against it, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that in view of Annexure A-4, the surrender value of the policy was 100% of the value of investment. Needless to mention that 100% of the premium is different from 100% of the value of investment. The Complainants had filled up a proposal form Annexure A-1 and the fund allocation chosen by them was 100%. The learned counsel argued that when 100% of the amount paid by the Complainant had been invested in shares or securities, the OPs would be liable to refund the 100% value of the same on the date of the surrender of the policy by the Complainants and it is what they have done. The learned counsel for the Complainants – Appellants could not produce any such document to suggest if the 100% of the value of the investment, to be paid by the OPs-Respondents, was more than Rs.36,425/-.  The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly concluded that the Complainants were not entitled to the amount of Rs.43,549/-, as claimed by them.   

9.                           As regards the delay in making the payment, the learned counsel for the OPs – Respondents have referred to a letter dated 6.12.2008, vide which the Complainants were informed that the electronic credit to their account on surrender payout could not be processed, as it was reported that there was no such account in existence and it shows that the OPs- Respondents had made efforts to credit the amount earlier, but the credit failed due to the fault of the ECS, which reported that the account number furnished by the Complainants did not exist. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaints filed by the Complainants – Appellants were rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.

11.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

15^th October, 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Sd/-

STATE COMMISSION

(F.A. NO. 67 OF 2010)

Argued by:          Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Adv. for Appellant.

                    Mr. K.S. Cheema, Adv. for respondent.

Dated the 15^th day of October, 2010.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the Complainant has been dismissed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2010 )

                                                                   Date of Institution: 07.01.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 15.10.2010.

S.P. Kansal son of Late Sh. K.R. Kansal, r/o H.No. 405, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.                                                     ……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1]       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor of ICICI Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2]       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Adv. for Appellant.

                    Sh.K.S. Cheema, Adv. for respondent.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                     For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.67 of 2010 - titled as ‘Parkash Gupta Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.’.

2.                     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced. 

15^th October, 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER