DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Sanjiv Mahendru, House No. 5805-B, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh.

                   ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited, Vinod Silk Mills Compound Chakravarthy Ashok Road, Ashok Nagar, Kandivali [E], Mumbai – 400 101 through the Officer-in-Charge/ Branch Manager.

[2]     ICICI PruLife Towers, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025, through the Officer-in-Charge/ Branch Manager.

[3]     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Parties

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant had taken an ICICI Pru Cash Back Policy bearing No. 00500676 (Annexure C-1) from the Opposite Parties on 11.9.2003, with the maturity/ termination date as 11.09.2023. The mode of payment of premium was yearly amounting to Rs.16,204/-. The corresponding proportions of the sum assured were payable as under:-

                   It is averred that the 1^st survival value slab of 4 years was paid to the Complainant. The only dispute is with regard to the 2^nd survival value slab of 8^th year, for which the Complainant paid regular premiums through cheques, but the said 15% amount of the sum assured i.e. survival value was not paid to him. Accordingly, he sent a letter dated 31.1.2011 to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-2), on receipt of which the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 04.11.2011, informed the Complainant that his survival value had been processed on 22.08.2011, and the same was held, due to non-receipt of the premium towards the policy due as on 11.09.2011, and on account of which the Policy was put to the inactive status (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, despite having issued a cheque to the Opposite Parties, on 11.11.2011  the Complainant, again paid the premium of Rs.17,027/- in cash, towards the aforesaid slab (Premium deposit receipt at Annexure C-4). Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Parties took no steps for the payment of the sum assured to the Complainant.

                   The Complainant claims that when he approached his Bank to know as to whether his cheque was cleared or not, he was informed to contact the Opposite Parties as the cheque, along with returning memo, was with the Opposite Parties; upon which the Complainant sent a detailed letter dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.C-5). Surprisingly, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 19.11.2011 (Annexure C-6) informed the Complainant that the survival payout was dispatched to his registered postal address, however, the same was returned due to incorrect address.  As per the Complainant, as this stand taken by the Opposite Parties is wholly contrary to their earlier stand, he sent letters dated 22.11.2011 and 12.12.2011 to the Opposite Parties claiming interest (Annexure C-7 & C-8), but only a vague reply was given to him by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 15.01.2012 (Annexure C-9).  Eventually, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, on 21.03.2012 (Annexure C-11), which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties on 12.04.2012, whereby they agreed to pay the amount, along with a meager rate of interest (Annexure C-12). Hence, this complaint.   

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not duly verified, but is supported by his detailed affidavit.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant deposited a cheque for renewal premium, which was dishonoured by the Bank, and on account of non-payment of premium, his policy went into inactive stage. Thereafter, he paid the premium in cash. Answering Opposite Parties claim that the cheque was returned due to the reason that the cheque does not belong to the customer. Furthermore, on the request of the Complainant, the cheque and memo were returned to him after the amount was deposited by cash. It is submitted that the Complainant paid the first eight premiums and duly received the first survival benefit as per terms and conditions. The second survival benefit was dispatched to the customer on 23.8.2011 through the Blue Dart Courier, however, the same has been returned due to incorrect address. The Complainant was sent a letter regarding the same and was requested to visit the nearest branch and get the cheque re- processed but the Complainant failed to do so. The Complainant instead of visiting the branch sent a legal notice, in reply to which the answering Opposite Parties wrote to the Complainant and his counsel “we wish to inform you that without admitting liability against the company and its officials, purely as an exception and as a gesture of goodwill, we offer you 3.5% interest on the payout of Rs.30,000/- till the date of this letter”. The Complainant was also informed that “we are hereby enclosing a copy of the advance discharge voucher, wherein you are requested to provide your consent that you are agreeable to the said proposition. But the Complainant failed to do so. It is also pleaded that the answering Opposite Parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Parties is not verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sudha Sharma, Chief Manager Legal.

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                Without repeating the averments of the complaint, for the sake of brevity, the only point of contention between the parties is with regard to the non-payment of 2^nd survival benefit which was to be paid @15% of the sum assured, after the 8^th year of the currency of the policy subscribed for by the Complainant. The Complainant claims that he was entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the 15% of the sum assured i.e. Rs.20,00,000/-, on completion of 8^th year of the policy and became due as on 28.08.2011. But the Opposite Parties failed to pay him the same, in time.

6.                The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the Complainant have mentioned that the survival benefit claimed by the Complainant was duly despatched at the address of the Complainant, through Blue Dart Courier, vide Airway Bill No. 44398033212 on 23.8.2011, which was received back undelivered due to incorrect address. However, while going through the documents, it is noticed that few other communications from the side of the Opposite Parties namely Annexures C-3, C-4, C-6, C-9, as well as the reply Annexure C-12 to the legal notice served upon them through Annexure C-11, all were delivered and duly received by the Complainant at the same address, upon which they claimed to have sent the survival benefit amount, though the Opposite Parties in support of their reply have annexed Annexure R-1 the delivery status report of Blue Dart Express Limited dated 10.8.2012, showing the status of “address incorrect, cannot deliver”. However, thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent a letter dated 15.1.2012 seeking some documents to re-process the cheque. Hence, it is evident that the Opposite Parties are in the knowledge of the amount of survival benefit lying with them as while replying to the notice of the Complainant, dated 21.3.2012, served upon them through his counsel, it is mentioned that the Opposite Parties offers to pay an interest at the rate of 3.5% on the payout of Rs.30,000/- as a gesture of goodwill and that a total amount of Rs.30,673.15P is payable at the offered rate of interest and that it would be released on the condition that the Complainant submits the acceptance of this offer by signing the advance discharge voucher sent with the reply.

7.                To our mind, the act of the Opposite Parties, who are aware of the entitlement of the Complainant, with regard to the second survival benefit, as well as his entitlement to interest on this amount for the period for which it had remained with the Opposite Parties, but at the same time, asking the Complainant to sign an advance discharge voucher without releasing the money promptly is an act of deficiency in service for the reason that the IRDA Guidelines  mandate that any claim which has become due to be paid to the insured by the insurance company be released within a period of 07 days, where after, the insurance company is liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% in excess of the savings bank rate payable as on the opening of the financial year during which it became due. Hence, by offering a lesser amount of interest on the amount which was due towards the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to him and at the same time, by offering a lesser amount of interest the Opposite Parties have tried to bye-pass the mandatory IRDA guidelines so as to retain the amount to which the complainant was entitled. This act of the Opposite Parties also amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is Allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed, to:-

[a]    To pay Rs.30,000/-, along with interest @ 2% over and above the savings bank rate of interest payable as on 23.08.2011 when the amount became due; 

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

9.                The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 8 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

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

Announced

08^th February, 2013.                                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER