DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> CC.No.224 of 01.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 22.12.2009<br /> Prem Sagar, aged about 52 years, son of Sh. Megha Ram, resident of House No. 28, Gali No. 1, Pooja Colony, Ward No.34, Sri Ganganagar now C/o Sh. Ami Chand Inspector Police, Gali No.1, Harbans Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ……Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its Chairman/ Managing Director.<br /> 2.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Branch Office: The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. ……Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhdarshan Sharma, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Smt. Navneet Kumari, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased a Life Time Pension-II Policy, vide Policy No. 01285263 on 11.01.2005, from opposite parties, and paid a premium of Rs. 10,000/-, and the same was made effective from 14.01.2005. He also paid premium of Rs. 10,000/- each on 29.03.2006, 13.01.2007 and on 26.02.2008 with the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not credit the premium of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by him, in cash on 26.02.2008. Complainant wrote many letters to the opposite parties to credit the said amount, but to no effect. He visited opposite party No.2 many times and requested to credit the same, but they did not credit the said amount in his policy. He also contacted Customer Care of the opposite parties, but they also did not listen his request. When the complainant did not receive any response, from the opposite parties for sufficient long time, he got issued a Regd. A.D. legal notice dated 15.09.2008 to them, requiring to credit the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-, but again no positive response received from the opposite parties. Therefore, he has sought directions that opposite parties be directed to credit Rs. 10,000/- in the account of his Policy No. 01285263, and further refund the total amount of Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, harassment, and inconvenience, he has suffered, besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations of the complainant raising objections that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has concealed true and material facts, from this Forum. It has been submitted that as per records of the company, the policy of the complainant is in a lapsed state since January 2008, due to non payment of premium, and as per clause 4.4 of the policy document, it was made clear that Premiums are payable on the due dates and at the rate mentioned in the Policy at time of commencement of the policy. However, a grace period of not more than 30 days, where the mode of payment of premium is other than monthly, and not more than 15 days in the case of monthly mode is allowed. It has been pleaded that if a premium is not paid during the days of grace, the policy shall lapse and no benefit shall be payable”. Complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. On merits it has been denied that the receipt submitted by the complainant, was issued by the company. The receipt submitted is a manual receipt, and the Company does not issue any manual receipt on payment. Moreover, the receipt does not have any signature on it. It has been stated that the seal provided on the receipt, is not a genuine seal. The policy acquired a lapsed status because the complainant failed to deposit the amount even after the expiry of the grace period i.e. 11.02.2008. When a policy lapses due to non-payment, than the only way to revive the policy is by paying the re-instatement charges, and request letter.<br /> 3. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own affidavits dated 05.11.09 and 27.08.09 Ex. C-1 and Ex.C-2, and also brought on record, photocopy of letter dated 15.09.08 Ex.C-3, copy of deposit receipt dated 26.02.08 Ex. C-4, copy of letter dated 11.08.08 Ex.C-5, copies of acknowledgements Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-7, and copy of receipt Ex.C-8.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Mr. Amol Apte, Senior Manager-Legal dated 12.11.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photocopy of application form Ex. R-2, and photocopy of terms and conditions of Policy Ex.R-3.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 6.  Admittedly, the complainant paid three installments of premium of the policy within stipulated period. Dispute is regarding the payment of premium which was paid vide receipt dated 26-02-2009 for Rs. 10,000/-. <br /> 7. The complainant alleges that he paid 4th installment of premium of the policy to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 26-02-2008 Ex. C-4 whereas the opposite parties allege that receipt is a forged and fabricated and as such, the complainant did not pay installment of 4th annual premium of the policy for which the complainant relies on receipt Ex. C-4. He also produced it from his custody. Therefore, the onus was upon the complainant to prove this document by leading positive evidence. He has not discharged this onus in as much he has not proved any document at all to prove its execution. He has not produced any person in whose presence it was executed. It was also not mentioned either in the complaint or in the affidavit of the complainant that it was executed in his presence. He has also not claimed that he identifies the signatures of its signatory. Therefore, complainant has failed to prove the execution of this receipt Ex. C-4.<br /> 8. Onus to prove receipt Ex. C-4 was not upon the opposite parties because he was not to lead any evidence in affirmative. Therefore, the fact remains that complainant has not succeeded in proving the complaint and consequently he cannot take any benefit.<br /> 9. Clause '5 – Surrender of Policy (Full withdrawal of Units) of Insurance policy Ex. R-3, which is for facility of reference as extracted below governs :<br /> “The policy – acquires a Surrender value provided that the Premium is paid for the first full policy year.<br /> The Surrender Value shall be equal to 25% of the value of units subject to payment of premiums for first full policy year 40% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for the two full Policy years and 60% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for the three full policy years and 100% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for four full policy years. The value of units for the purpose of the Surrender shall be computed by using the unit value on the valuation date immediately following the request of surrender. <br /> 10. Resultantly, it is held that complainant had paid three annual installments of premium of the policy to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, as per clause '5' of policy document Ex. R-3, he is entitled to 60% surrender value of the premium paid meaning thereby that the complainant is entitled for the payment of 60% of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 18,000/-.<br /> 11. In the preliminary objections in their written reply, the opposite parties referred Clause 4.4. of the policy Ex. R-3 which refers to lapse of policy if the premium is not paid within 30 days after the last date of premium if the payment of premium is annual, there is no dispute about this clause. <br /> 12. Since the complainant has failed to prove the execution of receipt Ex. C-4. The last premium was paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 13-01-2007, so policy stood lapsed since January, 2009. Hence, he is not entitled to any benefit of the policy except mentioned in para No. 10.<br /> 13. In view of the finding above, this complaint is accepted with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% .A. from the date when last installment was deposited till payment. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-12-2009 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />