Borhan Mollha,

son of Malek Mollha,

residing at village – Ranihati, P.O. Joynagar Bikihakala,

P.S. Panchala, Howrah,

West Bengal, PIN -711302.---------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,

having its office at P-4, Dobson Lane, New Howrah

Bridge Approach Road,

Howrah – 711 101..--------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainant. Shri Borhan Molla, by filing a petition U/S  12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.  to pay Rs. 25,000/-, being the amount paid by the complainant towards single premium in respect of his insurance policy in question, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment along with litigation costs and other reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one life link super pension type policy on payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 30-11-2006. And o.p. also issued one money receipt dated 30-11-2006 being no. 196466250 and in the receipt, policy number is mentioned as 03982132 vide  Annexure ‘A’ and policy term was for five years. As per complainant’s version it was having a single premium paying feature and the date of commencement of the policy was on 12-12-2006 and maturity date was on 12-12-2011. He was assured by the agent of the o.p. that he can withdraw his amount any time after lapse of three policy years. And the policy shall accrue ‘surrender value’. And after deducting surrender charges as mentioned in the policy document, he will be entitled to the remaining amount accumulated under his policy. Accordingly after lapse of five policy years, on 21-03-2012 he wrote a letter vide Annexure ‘2’ to the o.p. with the request to pay the surrender value of his policy mentioning therein that immediately after completion of five years on 12-12-2011, he went to o.p.’s Howrah Branch Office but he was refused to get any amount under his policy. And o.p. remained silent without doing the needful. Ultimately on 04-07-2012, he sent another  letter to o.p. with the same request. But still o.p. did not pay any heed to his request. Finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayer.

3.               Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.      We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. and noted its contents. Vide para 6(d), Clause No. ‘4’ under heading ‘Surrender’, o.p. has categorically mentioned that for surrendering a policy after five years under that particular type of policy, surrender charge is 0%.  And also admitted that original date cum maturity or  vesting  date fell on 12-12-2011. And since it is life-link super pension item, maturity date is considered to be the starting of annuity date.  And as per their operational system, o.p. also issued one letter dated 29-10-2011 to the complainant requesting him  to inform them about his annuity option out of given five annuity options vide Annexure ‘C’ of written version. And complainant never surrendered his policy before maturity date. So, it was not possible for them to understand what was the complainant’s choice of receiving his maturity amount. And after receiving complainant’s letter dated 21-03-2012, o.p. sent one reply dated  01-04-2012 vide Annexure ‘E’  stating therein that as he never surrendered his policy prior to maturity date i.e., 12-12-2011, he has to  opt for annuity plan as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Here, we take a pose to mention that vide letter dated 29-10-2011 Annexure ‘C’, o.p. mentioned the accumulated amount of fund value of the complainant under the said policy is Rs. 34,378.85 against his paid amount of  Rs. 25,000/- on 30-11-2006. And it is a common practice that none of us carefully reads and understands the  terms and conditions stipulated under an insurance policy. It is simply told by the agent of the company that if you keep this amount, you would get that amount. Complainant was under impression that at the time of maturity, he would get entire amount at a time. Accordingly he also mentioned his financial crisis in the letter dated 21-03-2012. And he asked for the return of entire maturity amount at a time. From the pleadings of the complainant  it is evident that he knew about the feature of the policy which he purchased.  And in the Annexure dated 30-11-2006 ‘First Premium Receipt’, the name of the policy is written as ‘ Life Link Super Pension’.  When the word ‘pension’ is written, everyone of us know that a particular amount would be given to a particular person, entitled to that at a regular interval. And o.p. also sent one letter to the complainant on 29-10-2011, prior to the date of maturity or annuity date. But complainant sent one letter only on 21-03-2012, after the date of maturity. O.p. again sent a reply on 01-04-2012 i.e,. Annexure ‘E’ of the written version  We have also gone through that letter of o.p.

6.               Under the above circumstances we do not find any deficiency in providing service to the complainant on the part of o.p. But it is expected that o.p. should have been more careful about the payment of maturity amount to the complainant when he informed them about his financial crunch through his letter dated 21-03-2012 to o.p. People keep their hard-earned money in any investment plan with the hope to get it at the time of his requirement. Accordingly the case is allowed partly against o.p. without any compensation but with costs. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 180  of 2013 ( HDF 180  of 2013 )  be  allowed in part on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to  pay Rs. 34,378.85 towards maturity amount  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a.  till actual payment.

      That the o.p. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within  one month from the date of this order  i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment. 

      No compensation shall be allowed.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.