Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/57/2022

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan Singh Pabla - Opp.Party(s)

Karandeep Singh Cheema , Gaurav Bhardwaj & Chetan Gupta Adv.

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	57 of 2022
Date of Institution	19.05.2022
Date of Decision	21.10.2022

 

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Unit No.1A & 2A, Raheja Tipco Plaza, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097 through its Managing Director.
2.  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Lmited, ICICI Prulife Towers 1089 Appasheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai 400025 through its Managing Director (Regd. Office)
3.  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, 134-136, Madhya Marg, Sector-8, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.    

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Mohan Singh Pabla S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh Pabla, R/o H.No.4058, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant

 

BEFORE:  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

 

Argued by:   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Appellants.

 Sh. Mohan Singh Pabla, respondent in person alongwith Dr. Kamaljit Singh, Authorised Representative.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 03.11.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions to the Opposite Parties: -

“Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case and discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties with direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards GMA (Guaranteed Maturity Benefit) to the complainant along with interest @10% p.a. from the due date i.e. 10.10.2019, when partial payment has been made to complainant, till its complete payment.  The OPs are also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and thrusting avoidable litigation.

       This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being allured by the false promise to get good returns made by the Opposite Parties, purchased ICICI Prudential Life Stage Assure Policies bearing No.11474513 & 11413517 on 08.03.2009 & 22.03.2009, respectively vide Annexures C-1 & C-2 and paid regular premiums thereof for 5 years.  It was stated that the complainant visited Opposite Parties for surrender of the policies after completion of 10 years’ period, whereupon he came to know that the Opposite Parties have illegally deducted an amount of Rs.3,04,264.14 from the policy amount towards premium allocation charges, charges for insurance cover and other charges.  It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to know fund value of Rs.1,21,599.29 against his invested amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for policy No.1141351 (Ann.C-2) and Rs.6,50,696/- against invested amount of Rs.5.00 lacs for policy No.11474513/- (Ann.C-1) whereas, he was assured minimum appreciation @12% on the invested amount. It was further stated that the complainant was also entitled for an amount of Rs.1,30,00/- as GMA (Guaranteed Maturity Addition) in respect of both the policies after 10 years policy period, but the Opposite Parties did not even pay that and in this regard legal notice was sent to Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed their joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has paid the premium only for 5 years though the premium payment terms opted by him was 15 years under both the policies, thus the company had to continue to deduct the charges from the 5 years’ premium paid by him until the policy was surrendered for covering his life and to maintain the fund. It was further stated that the fund growth or depreciation is purely based on the performance of the fund in the market and the risk involved in the ULIP policies was clearly explained in the proposal and also in the terms & conditions of the policy.  It was further stated that the complainant received the due amounts against the policies in question as on the date of surrender and the policy has not matured but has been surrendered by the complainant, therefore, he cannot take the benefit of Maturity Benefit under the Policy.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.  In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Complainant in Person and Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and respondent in person alongwith his authorized representative and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On a perusal of the District Commission records, we find that the learned District commission has rightly allowed the complaint against the appellants. The prayer of the respondent was for grant of Guaranteed Maturity Benefit (GMB) after completing ten policy years which have been withheld by the appellants. This Commission finds that the plea taken by the appellants for non-payment of Guaranteed Maturity Benefit which is benefit of maturity since there is specific feature in the policy document i.e. Annexure C-4 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that first year premium will be used to provide a Guaranteed Maturity Addition (GMA) when at least five years premium will be paid. Since in the present case the respondent had paid regular premium for five years for both the policies and he is fully entitled to get the benefit under both the policies and therefore, we find that the stand taken by the learned District Commission is in order and it does not require any interference and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.307 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 114 days (as per office report 115 days) also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

21.10.2022

           

                                                                           

                                                                            Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                                                                                 Sd/-                                                      

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP