PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 26th day of November 2011
Filed on :26/11/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No.628/2010
Between
T. Mohammed Ashraf, : Complainant
32/1510, Kalavath Cross road, (By Adv. K. Jagadeesh,
Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025. Sahasram Associates, Lawyers and
Notaries, Narayaneeam Buildings,
Chittoor road, Cochin-682 011.)
And
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, : Opposite parties
M.G. Road, North End, (By Adv. Sunil Sankar
Ernakulam. Kochi. K.N. Sivasankaran & Asso-
Ciates, Kochi-682 002.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma,Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant has taken Life Time Super Pension Policy with policy No. 04567058 from the opposite party. He has been regularly remitting the premium from time to time. The complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 1,46,207/- towards the insurance premium. On 14-04-2010 the complainant received a letter issued by the opposite party stating that the policy has been foreclosed with effect from 12-04-2010. A cheque for an amount of Rs.36,540/- was also enclosed therein. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 18-09-2010 to which the opposite party has sent a reply stating untenable statements. The policy conditions stated therein are not binding on the complainant as it stands contrary to the provisions of Insurance Regulatory Laws and the principles of common law. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs against the opposite party.
i to pay an amount of Rs. 1,09,667/-, to pay compensation of ii. to pay Rs. 50,000/- and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite party.
The complainant had paid the premium for the period of 22-02-2007 to 12-04-2008. Thereafter renewal premiums were not paid. Thus the policy culminated in to foreclosure. The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant was the advisor of the opposite party therefore he is well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. Clause 10 of the policy terms and conditions deals with foreclosure of the policy and clause 4 deals with surrender. If the policy is not remained within two years from the due date of first unpaid premium, the surrender value as per clause 4 will be paid only after the completion of three policy years. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. The complainant and the opposite party represented through the counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. Head the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amount from the opposite party as prayed for?
ii. Compensation and costs of the proceedings if any?
5. Point No. i&ii. No dispute with regard to the issuance of the policy. Ext. A1 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant stating that his policy has been foreclosed with effect from 12-04-2010. Ext. A2 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A3 is the copy of lawyer notice issued to the opposite party. Ext. B1 is the copy of proposal form, Exbt. B2 is the copy of reply notice and Exbt. B3 is the copy of policy document.
The case of the opposite party is that the complainant did not pay subsequent premiums, and thus his policy got foreclosed as per the terms and conditions the policy. Accordingly the complainant is entitled to get only surrender value. The opposite party has paid the surrender value to the complainant. During cross-examination the complainant deposed that he was working as a policy advisor of the opposite party. Further he stated that he is not remembering the policy terms and conditions, premium and premium frequency of the disputed policy. The contention of the opposite party is that the foreclosure of the policy was based on the policy terms and conditions. The complainant contented that he is not aware of the terms and conditions and the opposite party did not serve the same to him. Even though opposite party contented that they have duly forwarded the said document to the complainant, nothing is on records to prove that the opposite party had sent original policy and its booklet to the complainant so as to invoke the Free look provision. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the premium amount from the opposite party with interest. Admittedly the complainant had received Rs. 36,540/- from the opposite party by way of cheque. There is no evidence that the complainant received said cheque with full and final settlement. In Exbt. A2 letter complainant admitted that he remitted Rs. 1,36,000/- towards premium. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the remaining amount, ie, after deducting Rs. 36,540/- from 1,36,000/- (1,36,000- 36,540=99,460) from the opposite party. We are not ordering any compensation and costs since we have already ordered refund with interest.
6. Thus, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund Rs. 99,460/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November 2011.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 14-04-2010
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 27-04-2010
A3 : Copy of notice dt. 18-09-2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Exbt. B1 : Copy of policy document
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 12-10-2010
B3 : Copy of policy document
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 12-10-2010
Depositions:
PW1 : T. Mohamed Ashraf
DW1 : Amar Balagopal
