Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/80/2016

K.Thribuvan, S/o. Dr.K.Raja reddy, Represented by his Spl. GPA Holder Y.Suresh, S/o. Y.Lakshmaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

B.Narahari Reddy

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 24.08.2016

Order Date:13.09.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.80/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

K.Thribuvan,

S/o. Dr.K.Raja Reddy,

D.No.5-1-96, Sarojinidevi Road,

Tirupati Town and Mandal,

Chittoor District.

Represented by his Spl. G.P.A.Holder Y.Suresh,

S/o. Y.Lakshmaiah,

Hindu, aged about 40 years, business,

D.No.6-11-220, Maruthinagar,

Near Chenna Reddy Colony,

Tirupati Town,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Managing Director,

            Having its office at:

            ICICI Prolife Towers,

            Prabhadevi,

            Mumbai.

 

2.         The Branch Manager,

            ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

            Upstairs of Axis Bank,

            Near Anjaneyaswamy Temple,

            K.T.Road,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.09.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Smt.K.C.Sarala, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund premium amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment of the premium till the date of realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for mental agony caused to the complainant, and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint and to pass such other reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the opposite party No.1, has promoted a policy as “ICICI Prolife Time Super Pension Policy”. On the advice of the agent of the opposite parties, complainant has taken a Life Time Super Pension Policy bearing No.05528931 from the opposite parties. The term of the policy is for a period of 15 years commencing from 21.06.2007 to 21.06.2021, premium is Rs.50,000/- per annum. That the complainant has paid the first premium of Rs.50,000/- on 21.06.2007. Due to personal problems, he could not pay the subsequent premiums regularly. Later, he made a proposal to clear the subsequent dues and to continue the policy, and he made efforts to continue the policy, but the agent of the opposite parties stated that the complainant cannot continue the policy on the ground that the “policy was foreclosed” and sent a cheque bearing No.496859 dt:08.03.2014, drawn on ICICI bank for Rs.13,478/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and interest thereon. The complainant did not encash the cheque and returned the same to opposite parties. The agent of the opposite parties promised to refund the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest, but failed to do so. The complainant’s efforts to get back his premium amount were failed. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.2, filed the written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.1. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant took the “ICICI Pru Life Time Super Pension U 40 Policy” on 21.06.2007. That the complainant paid one premium for the said policy, later failed to pay the subsequent renewal premiums and revival amount for continuing the said policy. The said policy was foreclosed for failure to pay the premium amount, and sent a foreclosure cheque bearing No.730691 for Rs.13,478-44 dt:21.06.2010, drawn on ICICI bank, but the said cheque was not encashed by the complainant. That the complainant approached the opposite parties first time on 21.07.2011, regarding revival of the said policy. The opposite parties, as a special case offered the complainant to revive the policy by paying the overdue premium of Rs.2,00,000/-, but he failed to revive the policy. The opposite parties further contended that the agent of the insurance company is a necessary party. That due to non-payment of renewal premiums of the policy, it was foreclosed on 21.06.2010, as per applicable terms and conditions. That the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the agent as a party. That there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. That the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim is unsustainable and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  In support of the case of the complainant P.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. For the opposite parties R.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and reported no documents for the opposite parties.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (ii). Whether complainant is entitled for the refund of total premium amount of

                  Rs.50,000/- as prayed for, and for compensation as well?

            (iii) To what relief?

            6.  Point No.(i):- It is admitted fact that the complainant has taken ICICI Pru Life Time Super Pension Policy bearing No.05528931 from the opposite parties. The term of the policy is for 15 years i.e. from 21.06.2007 to 21.06.2021 admittedly. The premium amount of Rs.50,000/- per annum was paid for the first year on 21.06.2007. It was also stated by the complainant that due to his personal problems, he could not pay the subsequent payments regularly, but he approached the opposite parties and expressed his intention to continue the policy by paying the amounts due, but it was alleged that the agent of the opposite parties stated that he cannot continue his policy, as his policy was foreclosed, and a cheque bearing No.496859 dt:08.03.2014, was sent to the complainant, drawn on ICICI bank for Rs.13,478/-. Here it is the case, when the complainant approached the opposite parties for continuing his policy, he ought to have given option to pay the amounts / premiums due and continue the policy, but it was refused by the opposite parties through their agent on the ground that the policy was foreclosed. It is not the case of either party that the complainant himself applied for pre-closure / foreclosure of his policy at any point of time. But, how the opposite parties can foreclose the policy unilaterally? The opposite parties never intimated the complainant about his default in payment of subsequent premiums from 2008 onwards. It is also nowhere mentioned by the opposite parties either in their written version or in the chief affidavit of R.W.1 or in their written arguments that it was intimated to the complainant that his policy will be foreclosed for want of revival of the policy by paying premium amounts. Another important aspect is according to complainant the opposite parties have sent a cheque bearing No.496859 dt:08.03.2014 drawn on ICICI bank for Rs.13,478/-, but the opposite parties version as shown in their written version, chief affidavit of R.W.1 Sri.P.V.S. Purna Sai Prakash, Regional Manager of opposite parties, and in the written arguments filed on their behalf, they sent a cheque bearing No.730691 dt:21.06.2010 for Rs.13,478-44  to the complainant. This version is against the contents under Ex.A4 reply given by the opposite parties, wherein they have admitted at page.3 at para.4 that “the company had sent a cheque bearing No.496859 dt:08.03.2014 drawn on ICICI bank for Rs.13,478-44 to you as foreclosure payout”. So, if the policy was foreclosed in 2010, what made the opposite parties not to inmate the same or not to send the cheque till 08.03.2014? Whether sending the cheque bearing No. 730691 dt:21.06.2010 for Rs.13,478-44  to the complainant is true, or sending a cheque bearing No.496859 dt:08.03.2014 for Rs.13,478/- to the complainant is true. The opposite parties did not file any scrap of paper in support of their version that they have foreclosed the policy of the complainant on 21.06.2010 itself and send the cheque bearing No.730691 dt:21.06.2010 for Rs.13,478.44 to the complainant. By virtue of these self-contradictions of the opposite parties, their case cannot be accepted. It further appears prima facie that the foreclosure of the policy of the complainant is unilateral without prior intimation either regarding the default of the complainant in payment of premiums or regarding foreclosure of the policy of the complainant. This is quite against the principals of nature justice. It is also admitted fact that no notice is given to the complainant about his default in payment of premiums, and no notice is given either prior to the foreclosing of the policy or even subsequent to the foreclosure of the policy, on any ground much less on the ground of non-payment of premiums.

            7.  As per the complaint, policy is for 15 years covering the period from 21.06.2007 to 21.06.2021, no dispute with regard to the period. Ex.A1 also shows that the term is 20 years. Whether the policy term is 15 years or 20 years, it will be in force up to 21.06.2021 admittedly and mode of payment of premium is yearly. So, the cause of action is continuous. Therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. In Ex.A1, age of the policy holder is shown as 33 years, policy number is mentioned as 05528931, commencement of the policy is shown as 21.06.2007, due date of last premium is 21.06.2021, premium is Rs.50,000/-. In subsequent pages, age of the policy holder is shown as 30 years, annual premium is shown as Rs.20,000/-, chosen sum assured is shown as Rs.2,00,000/-, policy term is shown as 20 years. Non-giving opportunity for the policy holder to continue the policy, by paying the premiums due and non-furnishing of notices to the complainant intimating his default in payment of premiums, and foreclosure of the policy, without prior intimation to the policy holder amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Apart from it, the opposite parties did not mention in their written version, in the affidavit of R.W.1 or in their written arguments, the policy number that allotted to the complainant. The cheque number referred to by the opposite parties in their written version, chief affidavit and written arguments to the effect that they have sent a cheque bearing No. 730691 dt:21.06.2010, is also proves to be false and this plea was taken only to contend that the complaint is barred by limitation. Infact, the cheque bearing No.  496859 dt:08.03.2014, was admittedly given to the complainant in the year 2014. Since the cause of action continues because of the policy will survive till 21.06.2021, the complaint is not barred by limitation and it is within time. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            8.  Point No.(ii):-  In view of our discussion on point No.1, and non-filing of any scrap of paper in support of the case of the opposite parties, to prove that the foreclosure is not unilateral and that they have given prior notice informing the complainant about his default in payment of premiums and that they also gave notice to the complainant / policy holder before effecting foreclosure of his policy, and also furnishing wrong cheque number No. 730691 dt:21.06.2010, having admitted that they have given a cheque bearing No. 496859 dt:08.03.2014 itself shows that the opposite parties have not approached the Forum with clean hands. The opposite parties are not supposed to foreclose the policy unilaterally even without giving prior notice of foreclosure or without prior intimation about the default in payment of premiums subsequent to 2007. The opposite parties ought to have given option to complainant to pay the premiums due and continue the policy instead of denying his request. Thus, the opposite parties have failed to comply with the requirements of the terms and conditions of the policy, informing about the non-payment of outstanding dues and demanding to pay the premiums due or informing about the foreclosure of the policy to be effected. Therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled for the full amount of premium paid on 21.06.2007 in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he is also entitled for the compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for causing mental agony to the complainant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought for, and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the total premium amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) paid by the complainant on 21.06.2007 with interest at 9% p.a. from 21.06.2007 till realization, and also opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for mental agony suffered by the complainant, and the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                                   

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 13^th day of September, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Y. Suresh (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: P.V.S.Purna Sasi Prakash (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	ICICI Prudential “Life Time Super Pension Policy” with booklet in Original.
	Office copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Dt: 31.05.2016.
	Postal acknowledgements2 in number from the opposite parties for the said Legal Notice.
	Photo copy of reply given by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 01.07.2016.
	Special Power of Attorney in Original given by K. Tribhuvan in favour of Y.Suresh. Dt: 11.08.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

     

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

         

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.