Date of filing : 08-07-2011
Date of order : 30-05-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.166/2011
Dated this, the 30th day of May 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Karunakaran.K, } Complainant
S/o. Late K.Krishnan,
Krishnalaym, Near Railway Station,
Po.Cheruvathur, Kasaragod.
(Adv.Shrikanta Shetty.K, Kasaragod)
1. ICICI PRUDENTIAL Life Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite parties
Vinod Silk Mills Compound,
Chakravarthy Ashok Road, Ashok Nagar,
Kandivalli (East) Mumbai.400 101.
(Adv. K.Laxminarayanan & Rajesh.K. Kasaragod)
2. Suresh Babu.P.V, Agent, ICICI Prudential
Life Insurance, Near Central jail,
Pallikunnu, Eadachery.Po. Kannur.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is that he joined a policy of the ICICI PRUDENTIAL Life Insurance (Life time gold ) commenced from 25-02-2008 and paid the Ist premium of `20,000/- believing the words of opposite party No.2 agent that the amount paid will grow year by year. Opposite party No.2 assured of getting increased amount than Bank FD interest rate. After payment of Ist premium complainant received policy conditions and a letter from opposite party No.1 disclosing the fund value. As per the letter the fund value is only `16,050.35, this caused dissatisfaction to the complainant, he requested opposite party No.1 to refund his money as the complainant was not satisfied with the investment returns under the policy. Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 28-02-2011 stating that the said policy is closed with effect from 25-02-2011 and a cheque for `3,771.81 is received by the complainant foreclosure of policy is made voluntarily by opposite party No.1.
2. The opposite party branch officers and agents misguided and thereby caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant.
3. Opposite party filed version stating that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite parties. The comparison made by the complainant between insurance policy and fixed deposit is erroneous and misleading. The complainant is not entitled for any further amount.
4. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts A1 & A2 marked. Complainant faced cross-examination by opposite party No.1. On the side of opposite parties Exts B1 & B2 marked as they have no oral evidence. Both sides heard and documents scrutinized.
5. PW1 deposed that he availed the policy through opposite party No.2 and at the time of proposal opposite party No.2 made him believe that he would not loose anything if he remits `20,000/- the amount will grow year by year and will get an increased amount than the bank fixed deposit interest each year. Therefore the complainant opted to buy the said policy. But when he received policy conditions and a letter discloses the fund value he came to know that he purchased the policy only due the misrepresentations made by opposite party No.2, the insurance agent who acted on behalf of opposite party No.1. So the signing of proposal form involved a concealed trap.
6. The agent is engaged to obtain a valid and enforceable contract disclosing all the terms and conditions and misrepresentation makes the contract void. Thereafter the complainant demanded to refund of `20,000/- soon after receiving the policy, but opposite parties refused the same. But opposite party No.1 foreclosed the policy voluntarily. The acts of opposite parties 1 & 2 caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant. Opposite party failed to produce documentary evidence to show that complainant demanded foreclosure of policy opposite party No.1 has no right to forclose the policy without a written demand form the complaint. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
7. Relief & Costs.
The complainant has deposited `20,000/- on 25-02-2008 on the assurance of opposite party No.2 that the complainant will get an attractive amount in future. The complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount he spent for the policy with interest from the date of deposit with costs.
8. The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay `16228.19 with interest @ 9% from 25-02-2008 till date of payment. Opposite parties further directed to pay `3000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the amount `16228.19 will carry 12% interest.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Statement of Account
A2.28-02-2011 letter of OP.
B1.Copy of policy document.
B2.Policy document.
PW1. A.Karunakaran.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
