KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 557/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 02.04.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 699/2015 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT : 

SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                           : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Varghese V.L, Veerampully House, P.O. Nellai, Thrissur, Pin-680 305.

                              (By Adv. Unnikrishnan. V)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Capital City, Korappath Lane, Thrissur-680 020.

JUDGMENT

SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER

Complainant not satisfied with the quantum of amount ordered with interest and cost in C.C. No. 699/2015 dated 13.11.2015, on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, has filed this appeal.  The district forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.  1,42,638.74 with 9% interest along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost. 

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he took an insurance policy from the opposite party on the assurance that on maturity he will get Rs.3,00,000/-.  The policy matured on 16.02.2013.  He remitted Rs. 1,00,000/- as premium.  On maturity opposite party had given to him Rs. 1,42,638.74 which was against the promise made by the opposite party and hence he refused to accept the amount.

3.  Opposite party even though received notice did not appear before the forum and not file any version.  So they were set ex-parte. 

4.  Evidence in the case consisted of affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by the complainant and Exts. P1 to P5 marked on his side. 

5.  The lower forum on the basis of the materials produced found that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,42,638.74, the maturity value of the policy as on 06.02.2013 with 9% interest and cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

6.  Heard the appellant and perused the records. 

7.  The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the opposite party has assured a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as maturity on the date of issuance of the policy, they did not do so and sent Ext. P2 letter, showing that the maturity value of the policy is only Rs. 1,42,638.74, which according to the counsel is against the terms and conditions of the policy. 

8.  Perusing the documents it can be seen that complainant has not produced any document to substantiate his case that he is entitled to get Rs. 3,00,000/- as maturity amount.  He has not even produced the original policy.  The only document available is Ext. P2 letter issued by the opposite party intimating the complainant that the maturity value as on 16.02.2013 is Rs. 1,42,638.74.   From the letter it is inferred that the policy is a unit link policy.  In a unit link policy the maturity value depends upon the market value at the time of surrender of the policy.  Ext. P2 goes to show that maturity value is at Rs. 1,42,638.74.  The lower forum in these circumstances has rightly ordered the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,42,638.74 with 9% interest from 16.02.2013 along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 

9.  No circumstance is shown that the complainant/appellant is entitled to get more compensation as prayed for over and above the sum which is ordered by the lower forum.  We find that the case canvassed by the appellant to get more amount as maturity value of the policy, than what is allowed by the lower forum, is devoid of any merit.  There is nothing to interfere with the reasonable order of the lower forum. 

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

T.S.P MOOSATH     :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                                                                                       RANJIT. R    : MEMBER