Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/525

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JACOB PAUL - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.525/2013

JUDGMENT DATED :27.11.2014

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.224/2012 on the file of CDRF, Idukki order dated : 28.02.2013)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

Idukki Road,

 Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha.P.O                                                                          APPELLANT

Idukki

 

(By Adv.Sri.Krishnakumar & M.Anil Prasad)

 

VS.

 

 

1. Jacob Paul,

Mundackal House,

Karimannoor.P.O

Thodupuzha,

Idukki

                                                                                                        RESPONDENTS

2. Anie Jacob,

Mundackal House,

Karimannoor.P.O

Thodupuzha,

Idukki

 

(By Adv.Sri.P.A.Sivakumar for R1 & R2)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            Appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.224/2012 in the CDRF, Idukki. The complainants, respondents herein alleged in their complaint that Sherly Paul an agent of the opposite parties approached them and canvassed deposit on the assurance that the opposite parties would refund the amount with 12% interest. They were further made to believe that payment of single premium was sufficient under the scheme. The complainants contacted the Thodupuzha office of the first opposite party. They also offered the same benefits. So the complainants deposited Rs.1,00,000/- each with the respondents as per two cheques dated 10.10.2007 and 12.10.2007 respectively. To the surprise of the complainants they received on 20.10.2010 cheques for Rs.25,163.19/- each, drawn on the ICICI Bank dated 13.10.2010 along with a covering letter dated 14.10.2010. The complainants were informed that the opposite parties would not be under any risk and no benefit would become payable under the policy from 12.10.2010. The complainant sent registered letter to the Mumbai office of the opposite party requesting refund of the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest. But they did not care to repay the balance amount. The opposite parties obtained unlawful gain to the tune of Rs.1,49.673.62/- along with accured interest. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

            2.        The opposite parties contended before the consumer forum that the complaint is barred by limitation. The policies in question were obtained by the complainants in 2007. Through letter dated 15.12.2007, Complainants were informed about the details of their premium payment. Hence the present petition filed after five years is barred by limitation. Policy is a legal contract between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainants obtained fifteen days free look period during which they could have rescinded the contract. Since that is not done the complainants cannot now resile from the contract. The complainants are also not entitled to claim any relief as full premium for the first three policy years is not paid and policy is not revived within a period of two years from the due date of the first unpaid premium. The complainants were paid surrender value of the one premium paid by them as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The complainants failed to pay subsequent premiums allowing their policies to lapse. The complainants received on foreclosure of the policy an amount of Rs.25,163.19/- each and cashed the same on 02.12.2010. They are not entitled to maintain the complaint after receiving the amount. The policy issued to the complainants was a regular premium policy and the complainants were bound to pay premiums regularly. The premium payment term selected by the complainants is for ten years. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            3.        Before the consumer forum the first complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainants. The opposite parties adduced no oral evidence, but marked Exts.R1 and R2 on their side. The Consumer Forum held that the opposite parties were guilty of unfair trade practice and accordingly allowed the complainants each to realize Rs.74,847/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint and Rs.1000/- as cost. The opposite parties are challenging the correctness of the order of the consumer forum. The only question to be decided is whether the conclusion of the consumer forum that the appellants committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is sustainable.

            4.        Admittedly, the complainants availed one policy each from the opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each respectively on 10.10.2007 & 12.10.2007. According to the complainants SherlyPaul an agent of the opposite parties made them believe that only payment of one premium was sufficient and the amount would be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with other benefits. This is denied by the opposite parties. According to them, the complainants chose premium payment term of 10 years. Since the complainants failed to pay premium subsequent to the first year premium foreclosure was effected and refund of Rs.25,163.19/- was effected as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the complainants are not entitled to any relief.

            5.        The appellants have a contention that the complaint is barred by limitation. But obviously, the cause of action arose within two years prior to the date of complaint and the contention is devoid of merit. It is the definite contention of the appellants that through letters dated 15.12.2007. The complainants were informed about the details of their premium payment. But no such letter is seen produced and proved. When banks sanction loans, they invariably fix payment schedule and inform the customers about the payment schedule. There are no such documents produced in this case. Ext.R2 contains only general conditions of insurance policies. No specific details of the insurance policies issued to the complainants are available. Exts P5 and P6 letters dated 14.10.2010 do not contain premium payment dates. The premium certificates do not refer to any obligation to pay further insurance premium. In the background of the available documents, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complaints that the agent of the opposite parties persuaded them to avail the policies on the assurance that only one premium was payable. Often, the agents of the insurance companies resort to aggressive canvassing and even misleading canvassing to attract subscribers to policies. The insurance companies are reluctant to furnish documents containing specific terms and conditions facilitating such canvassing of policies. No doubt, an insurance policy is a contract of utmost good faith. But the insurance companies have also their own obligations. The very nature of the contract requires that the full consequences of the contract should be explained to   the customers. Their agents do not often realize the seriousness of the situation. So documents are not available to show that complainants were in fact told about the payment of the subsequent premiums. In short, the consumer forum was justified in holding that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.525/2013

JUDGMENT

DATED :27.11.2014

 

                                                                                                               BE/