DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                            .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                           ......MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.136/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Mr.M.Venkateswaran,

S/o.Muthuveern,

No.37, II Street, Kasthuri Nagar,

Korattur, Chennai 600 080.                                                              ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,

   Rep. by its General Manager,

   Unit No.1A & 2A, Raheja Tipco Playa,

   Rani Sati Marg, Malad East, Mumbai -400 097.

 

2.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   LKS Towers, 3rd and 4th Floor,

   Opp. to Ayyappan Temple,

   Second Avenue, Main Road,

   Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.                                             …..opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                 :   M/s.P.Wesley Issac, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                          :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 26.10.2022 in the presence of M/s.P.Wesley Issac Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not refunding the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- premium amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses and cost of the complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

Being dissatisfied with the non refund of premium amount the present coamplaint was filed. It was submitted by the complainant that the opposite party issued policy bearing No.0842117 on 27.03.2008 under ICICI Pru Life Stage Pension Act with yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/-.  In accordance to clause 6(2) and 4(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy holder’s Interests) Regulation 2002 the opposite party had given policy documents bearing No. 0842117 dated 27.03.2008 and the complainant paid premium a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Due to sudden loss in business and cancellation of his business contracts and other inevitable circumstances the complainnt could not be continue to pay the yearly premium amount to the opposite party. Consequently the complainant wanted to cancel the policy and requested for refund of the amount paid by him. The complainant requested for refund of the initial premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- but it was not answered.  The oppostie party was duty bound to refund the amount with 12% interest from 27.03.2008 as they were holding the complainant’s amount for the past 10 years and adopting dilatory tactics, with an ulerior motive and malafide intention. Thus the complanant issued a legal notice dated 26.06.2018 to the oppostie party to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest from 27.08.2008.  A reply was sent by the oppostie party stating that the policy got foreclosed on 28.03.2011 and sent a foreclosure cheque for Rs.25,842.07/- on 08.03.2011. Thus aggreived by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;

To direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- premium amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest per annum;

 To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss

 To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses and cost of the complaint.

 On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Though vakalath was filed for the opposite parties they did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 26.02.2020 for non appearance and for non filing of written version as per the statute.

Points for consideration:

Whether the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant as requested by him amounted to deficiency in service?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

  Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Copy of policy document dated 27.03.2008 was marked as Ex.A1;

Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 20.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

Reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 31.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;

Heard the oral arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and also perused the pleadings and material evidences submitted by him.  The crux of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant sought for refund of the premium amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards the policy LIFE TIME GOLD as the complainant could not pay the 2nd year premium of Rs.1,00,000/- due to sudden loss in his business and other inevitable circumstances. However, inspite of several efforts the opposite parties did not refund the premium amount.  Hence the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party for which a reply was given by the opposite party stating that the policy got foreclosed on 28.03.2011 and a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,842.07/-was sent along with reply.  However the same was not encashed by the complainant.  Thus the learned counsel argued that the opposite parties are holding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for more than 10 years with a mala fide intention and hence there may be directed to refund the said amount with interest.

On appreciation of the entire materials we could see that the complainant has taken LIFE TIME GOLD policy from the opposite parties with sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The policy document Ex.A1 clearly reveals that “the policy shall be subject to and be governed by the schedule and the terms and conditions of the policy document enclosed herewith including every endorsement by the company and shall together form a single contract“. It is also clearly found that vide Ex.A3 the reply notice dated 31.08.2018 issued by the opposite parties the terms and conditions in the policy clearly states the implication of non-payment of premiums.  In the present case when the company did not receive any payment for the renewal of premium due on date 27.03.2009,the policy gets foreclosed on 28.03.2011.  It is also seen that a foreclosure cheque of Rs.25,842.07/- was also sent on 28.03.2011 though it was not encashed by the complainant.  They have also sent a reminder for payment of premium and also intimated about the policy lapsed to the complainant appropriately citing the said reason and also communicated that they were unable to consider the request of the complainant to cancel the policy and for refund of the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In such facts and circumstances we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for the reason that the contract of insurance binds both the parties. The terms and conditions mentioned in the policy document to be followed by both parties. When it is clearly stated by the opposite parties in the reply notice that due to non-payment of premium the policy got lapsed as per the terms and conditions.  Hence as a matter of right the complainant cannot seek for cancellation of the policy along with refund of the premium already paid by him. The foreclosure cheque of Rs.25,842.07/- was also sent by the opposite parties to the complainant though it was not accepted by the complainant. In the above circumstances we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have acted only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.  Merely for the reason that opposite parties did not appear before this commission, no liability could be imposed upon there when complainant has not substantiated his allegations.  Thus we answer the point accordingly against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

Though the complaint is dismissed the complainant is entitled Rs.25,842.07/- to be paid by the opposite party.  Thus the point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  However, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,842.07/- (Rupees twenty five thousand eight hundred forty two only) to be paid by the opposite party. 

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31st day of October 2022.

 

       -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-  

MEMBER-II                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 27.03.2008 Copy of policy document bearing No.0842117. Xerox

Ex.A2 20.08.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A3 31.08.2018 Reply notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties;

 

 

Nil

 

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                               -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                 PRESIDENT