Haryana

Karnal

CC/141/2017

Vishal Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Gupta

15 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 141 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 20.04.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 15.02.2019

Vishal Shukla (minor), aged 15½ years son of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla son of Shri R.P. Shukla, resident of House no.134, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal, minor through his father Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla.

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                                  Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Managing Director/authorized signatory, ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Maratha Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

2.  Karan Deep Singh, Advisor ICICI Prudential Life Insurance.

3.  Inderjeet Sing, Advisor ICICI Prudential Life Insurance.

4. Amit Bhatia Unit Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance c/o ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sector-123, Urban Estate, Karnal.                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri V.K.Gupta Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Vikas Chauhan Advocate for OPs.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is minor and was born on 31.03.2001 and is living the care and custody of his father Rajesh Kumar Shukla. So the present complaint is being filed by the complainant through his natural guardian and next friend. Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla purchased a policy bearing no.5689323 from OP no.1 which was to be matured on 2.3.2015 and when OPs no.2 to 4, who were there in the office, came to know about the maturity of policy on 2.3.2015 and seeing the amount, they trapped Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla and allured him to purchase the policy and dwelt upon the basic picture of the policy, from where Shri Rajesh Shukla was told that the policy I s for 10 years and if purchased in the name of minor, it will be of great benefit to the minor and it is one time investment. OPs no.2 to 4 further told that the policy holder would get multiple income from purchase of the policy, which can be withdrawn after five years and is tax free. Shri Rajesh Shukla purchased the policy from OP no.1 having its working, through OPs no.2 to 4. Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla was to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as one time investment and OP no.1 issued a policy no.19177993 dated 27.02.2015. So, the policy which was matured on 2.3.2015 was closed and a new policy in the name of the complainant was issued and a sum of Rs.15,110/- was credited in account no.017301534058 of Shri Rajesh Shukla. After purchase of the policy and after a sufficient long time of more than a year, OP no.1 sent the policy which was not in a stipulated time but complainant is a minor and his father is a simpleton person and is not well conversant with the modalities of the policy and having trust on the OPs no.2 to 4 did not go through the contents of the policy, Shri Rajesh Shukla was astonished and surprised to know, when he received a telephonic call from the Department for the payment of an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as a premium of the policy for the year 2016-2017. Shri Rajesh Kumar approached the OPs in this regard but nobody ready to hear to him. Finding no justice from OPs, complainant approached the Grievance Committee of OP no.1 but this Committee also did not hear to Shri Rajesh Shukla. It is further alleged that the policy is having annual premium of Rs.9,00,000/-. Shri Rajesh Shukla is not having so much income to invest a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- annually for payment of a premium in the policy and the complainant is a minor and is a student, who is not an earning hand. So the question of purchasing the policy either in the name of minor or his father after the payment of premium of Rs.9,00,000/- annually is next to impossible and as such, does not arise. The complainant has been trapped by OPs no.2 to 4 for their illegal gain, which has caused illegal loss to the complainant and his father Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that as per the terms of the policy contract if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy reviewed by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (freelook period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. In the present case as per Regulation 4(1) of the IRDA Regulation a copy of the proposal form duly signed by the policyholder is also sent to the policyholder alongwith the policy document via e-mail and also by hand thereby giving an opportunity to the policyholder to understand the terms and conditions and approach the company if any discrepancy. It is further pleaded that the complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. As the complainant did not approach OPs and got her subject policy reviewed/cancelled within free look period thereby implying that the complainant duly accepted the subject policy and its documents with its terms and conditions. It is further pleaded that the policy documents were dispatched on 4^th March 2015 to the complainant and the same was duly delivered to the complainant on 5^th March, 2015 at his registered address. It is further pleaded that the complainant had paid first yearly premium by transferring amount from his already existing policy. The company has covered the life of the Life Assured upto the said period hence claiming refund of the premium paid herein is irrelevant and the same cannot be allowed. If the complainant does not pay further renewal premiums then as per the policy terms and conditions the policy will stand lapsed and the Fund Value as on the date of policy discontinuance will be transferred to the Discontinued Policy Fund as clearly stated in clause 4.2. It is further pleaded that the complainant herein has an option to revive the policy within 2 years as mentioned under clause 4.4. It is further pleaded that there is a 5 years lock in period under the subject policy hence the complainant does not have an option to surrender his policy before the said lock-in period of 5 years.  It is further pleaded that OPs hold a total four policies apart from the subject policy with the company. Out of two are surrendered, one is in force and one is foreclosed. It is further pleaded that the owner of the policy is an educated person hence it is presumed that before signing any document he should have read the particulars therein specifically because in the present case the complainant has invested a huge amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the subject policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 10.05.2018.

4.             On the other hand OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Kamath Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 20.11.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is minor and was born on 31.03.2001. The father of the complainant purchased a policy bearing no.5689323 from OP no.1, which was to be matured on 02.03.2015 and when he OPs no.2 to 4 came to know about the maturity, they trapped the father of the complainant and allowed him, if he purchase the policy in the name of minor, it will be a great benefit to the minor and it is a one- time investment. The father of the complainant thinking that his son is minor and is having no source of income and after a period of ten year, he would have multiply income against the investment, which shall be sufficient to keep and maintain the minor. That’s why father of the complainant purchased policy no.19177993 dated 27.02.2015 in the name of the complainant by paying Rs.9,00,000/- as one time investment.

7.             Further, after purchasing the policy and after a sufficient long time of more than a year, OP no.1 sent the policy, which was not in a stipulated time but complainant is minor and his father is a simpleton person and is not well conversant with the modalities of the policy and having trust in OPs no.2 to 4, did not go through the contents of the policy. Father of the complainant was astonished and surprised to know when he received a telephonic call from the Department for the payment of an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as a premium of the policy for the year 2016-2017. The father of the complainant approached the OPs no.2 to 4, but no satisfactory reply was given by them. Moreover, his father Rajesh Kumar Shukla does not possess the source nor have any income to pay an annual premium of Rs.9,00,000/- whereas the complainant is minor and is a student who is not an earning hand and as such, neither the complainant nor his father is able to pay the premium of Rs.9,00,000/- annually and as such, the name of the minor or his father after the payment of premium of Rs.9,00,000/- annually is next to impossible and as such does not arise. The premium is to pay only one time not for the ten years. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the authorities cited in (2018) 2 CPR 266 (NC) titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Risheendran Nambiar, 2001(1) CPC of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab case titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Parmod Chander and (1999) 2 CPC 85 of Hon’ble State Commission Chandigarh case titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Versus S.P. Lamba.

8.             The case of the OPs no.1 and 4 is that as per the terms of the policy contract if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy reviewed by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (free look period) from the day the policy holder receives the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deduction specified therein. The complainant did not approach the OPs for cancel the policy within freelook period. But the complainant kept silent for a period of one year. The policy documents were dispatched on 04^th March, 2015 to the complainant and the same was duly delivered on 05^th March, 2015 at his registered address. The company has covered the life of the life assured upto one year. Hence, claiming refund of the premium paid herein is irrelevant and same cannot be allowed. If the complainant failed to pay the premium then as per the policy terms and conditions, the policy will stand lapsed and the Fund value as on the date of policy discontinuance will be transferred to the discontinued policy fund (DP Fund). Once the Fund value is moved into a DP Fund no risk cover and minimum death benefit shall be payable. The company is not liable on the wrong act of the agent. The father of the complainant purchased the policy after verifying the terms and conditions. The father of the complainant holds a total of 4 policies, apart from the subject policy with the company. Out of these 2 are surrendered, one is in force and one is foreclosed. The father of the complainant has knowledge of the terms and conditions of the policy and complainant is not entitled for any refund of premium.

9.             Undisputedly, the father of the complainant Rajesh Kumar Shukla was having a policy bearing no.5689323 which was to be matured on 02.03.2015 and maturity amount was Rs.9,15,110/-. It is also admitted that complainant Vishal Shukla is minor and policy in question was purchased by his father in the name of the complainant. The premium amount was paid Rs.9,00,000/- a the time of purchasing of the said policy. The said premium was paid by the father of the complainant as his policy as matured for the sum of Rs.9,15,110/-. Remaining amount of Rs.15,110/- was credit in the account of Rajesh Kumar Shukla.

10.           Further, as per the case of the complainant the premium was a one time investment. The father of the complainant paid the same on believing the assurance of OPs. It is also case of the complainant that policy documents not received within stipulated period. Moreover, same was received after a long time of more than a year. On the other hand, the version of the OPs that the policy in question alongwith the documents dispatched on 4^th March 2015 to the complainant on his registered address and delivered on 5^th March 2015. In this regard, complainant relied upon;’ the online screenshot (Ex.R1). As per the screenshot the policy in question was delivered on 5.3.2015 to the complainant’s registered address creating doubt not trustworthy.

11.           The policy in question is not a 1^st policy purchased by the father of the complainant. According to para no.12 of the preliminary objections, the complainant purchased 4 policies, apart from the subject policy with the company. Complainant purchased 1^st policy (Smart Kid) on 21.11.2003, 2^nd policy (life time) on 20.09.2004, 3^rd policy (lifetime super pension) on 15.07.2007 and 4^th policy (life stage wealth II) on 29.11.2011. In this way, the father of complainant is purchasing policies since 2003, hence it is clear that insurance is not a new concept to him. But here under the subject policy he kept silent for a period of one year. As per the terms and conditions of the policy in question, the complainant was insured for the amount of Rs.90,00,000/- (ninety lakh) for the period of one year. The complainant did not apply for cancellation of the said policy within the “freelook period” of 15 days from the date of receipt of the documents. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant is not entitled for refund of the paid premium. The judgment cited by the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.02.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member