KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.768/12

JUDGMENT DATED:29.10.2013

   (Against the order in CC.565/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam, dtd:31.01.2011)

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                       :  PRESIDENT

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089,

Appa Saheb Maratha Marg,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025.                                                    : APPELLANT

(By Adv: Sri.Binu Sukumaran & C.S.Rajmohan)

            Vs.

1.         John Manjuran,

Manjuran House,

Vappalassery, P.O.Kochi,

Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Smt.R.Suja)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2.            Benny Abraham, Advisor,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

3^rd floor, Thomson Tower,

Above Josco Jewellers, M.G.Road,

North End, Kochi-682 035.

JUDGMENT

   JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party in CC.565/10, on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 31, 2012 directing the opposite parties to refund the insurance premium amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with interest.

2.          The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

On July 25, 2007 complainant availed a Life Time Super Pension Policy from the first opposite party, M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company through 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of taking the policy opposite parties assured the complainant that it was a single premium policy of Rs.5,20,000/- and that he need not pay any further amount.  At the time of taking policy the complainant was employed abroad and was spending holidays at home.  On the next day of taking the policy he went abroad.  Thereafter no information was received from the opposite parties.  About one year afterwards, on August 12, 2010 complainant received a letter from the first opposite party demanding payment of further premium in this policy.  On August 12, 2010 first opposite party issued a notice to the complainant stating that policy was foreclosed and that he will get back only 25% of the amount.  Therefore complainant claimed the refund of policy amount with interest.

3.          The first opposite party is M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Mumbai.  Second opposite party is Benny Abraham, Advisor of the company.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum:-  The complainant had initially taken a policy from the first opposite party company, which was later surrendered, and the policy amount was transferred to the present policy.  It is clearly mentioned in the policy that it is an yearly premium policy for 10 years and the first opposite party has received the first instalment of Rs.5,20,000/-. As provided under Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (protection of policy holders interest)  Regulations 2002, free look period was given to the complainant to review the policy within that period.  Complainant did not approach the opposite party for cancellation of the policy. As the complainant did not pay the subsequent premium policy was foreclosed.  The first opposite party is entitled to realise the surrender charge and the complainant is entitled to only the balance amount.

4.          Complainant was examined as PW1 an Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on his side.  On the part of the first opposite party DW1 was examined before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced by the 2^nd opposite party.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the premium amount paid by the complainant with interest.  First opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.          Heard both the counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1.                Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the premium amount paid by him?

2.                Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6.          It is not disputed that complainant surrendered his earlier policy and transferred the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- to the disputed policy.  It is evidenced by Ext.A6 receipt also.  Complainant as PW1 testified that at the time of joining the policy the 2^nd opposite party assured him that it is a single premium policy and that he need not pay the further premium.  The opposite parties contended that it was 10 year policy with an yearly premium of Rs.5,20,000/- and the terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant and that as the complainant did not cancel or surrender the policy within the free look period he is not entitled to refund of the premium.

7.          But there is no evidence to show that opposite parties have delivered the original policy to the complainant.  It is also not proved that free look period was made available to the complainant.  Complainant on the other hand testified as PW1 before the Forum that 2^nd opposite party has submitted that it is a single premium policy.  Second opposite party has not chosen to come forward to deny the same.  Therefore we are of the view that there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It follows that complainant is entitled to refund of the premium to the insurance policy paid by him Rs.5,20,000/-.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.          The Forum has directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.5,20,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of Ext.A6 receipt till realization.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.