West Bengal

StateCommission

A/178/2016

M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Hafiza Begum - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ms. Punam Kumari Choudhuri

19 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/178/2016
(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/02/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/194/2013 of District Kolkata-I(North))
 
1. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chitrakut Building, 230A, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.S - Park Street, Kol - 700 020.
2. The Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Prulife Tower, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025.
3. Authorised Signatory, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakravarthy Ashok Nagar, Ashok Road, Kandevali (E), Mumbai - 400 101.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Mrs. Hafiza Begum
30, Sundari Mohan Avenue, P.S - Beniapukur, Kol - 700 014.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ms. Punam Kumari Choudhuri, Advocate
For the Respondent: S. M. Masud., Advocate
Dated : 19 May 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

 

In the instant Appeal, the Appellants/OPs challenged the Judgment and Order dated 03-02-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit I in Complaint Case No. 194/2013 filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 allowing the complaint with the directions as under:

 

“That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps.  O.ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only being the amount paid by the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for the harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of the order i.d. interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full satisfaction.”

 

The facts of the case, as revealed on perusal of the papers and on hearing of the arguments as well, are narrated in brief hereunder.

 

The Respondent/Complainant initiated a Life time Policy No. 022690018 sponsored by the Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., being the Appellants/OPs, on 06-01-2006.  The Respondent/Complainant paid the annual premium of Rs. 3,00,000/- by  cheque no. 911733 dated 03-01-2006 which was duly encashed by the Appellants/OPs. 

 

As per terms and conditions of the policy, Rs. 10,00,000/-, being the matured value of the policy, was assured on payment of the same amount of annual premium for three successive years.  The Respondent/Complainant, however, after payment of aforesaid premium for the first year, could not pay the 2nd and 3rd instalments of annual premium as per policy terms and conditions.  Non-payment of due premiums, in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy led to the policy being lapsed.  The Appellants/OPs, on being approached by the Respondent/Complainant for refund of the premium amount paid during initiation of the policy, refused to make any refund.  The refund of the paid premium  amount proposed in the legal notice dated 17-09-2012 sent to the Appellants/OPs by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant was also ignored by the Appellants/OPs.  The Appellants/OPs’ refusal to the refund proposed through the aforesaid legal notice on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant was communicated by the Appellants/OPs through their letter dated 27-09-2012.

 

The aggrieved Respondent/Complainant then filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.  The impugned Judgment and Order disposed of the said complaint case.

 

Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

 

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs submitted that the Respondent/Complainant, as per his own admission in the complaint, became defaulter in payment of premiums.  The subject policy was lapsed because of the Respondent/Complainant being defaulter and therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Appellants/OPs.

 

The Ld. Advocate drew the notice of the Bench to running page no. 95 being their letter addressed to the Respondent/Complainant.  Refering to Paragraph 2 at Page No. 96 of the said letter, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the very letter indicates how the Appellants/OPs made efforts to make the Respondent/Complainant conversant about the policy forwarding the policy terms and conditions to the Respondent/Complainant along with the proposal form and how the Respondent/Complainant, in spite of receiving the communication in time and thereby having ample opportunity to understand the policy terms and conditions which include the premium paying term, premium amount, the frequency and the foreclosure of the policy remained indifferent in taking care for keeping the policy running.

 

The Ld. Advocate went on the submit that the Respondent/Complainant even adopted an unfair practice by issuing two cheques involving the premium amounts bearing Cheque no. 280562 dated 05-01-2009 drawn on IDBI Bank and Cheque No. 558768 dated 05-01-2009 drawn on ICICI Bank for renewal of the subject policy.  The said cheques, as the Ld. Advocate maintained, were bounced for mismatch of signature and for insufficient balance, respectively.

 

The Ld. Advocate read out the relevant portion of Page No. 97 and 98 and confirmed that the Appellants/OPs, through their aforesaid communication, explained to the Respondent/Complainant categorically the reasons as to why their proposal of refund could not be acceded to.

 

The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.

 

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant placed before the Bench a very brief submission which was more an appeal than any argument.  The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the Bench, before taking the conclusive decision should decide on a single point as to whether the entire premium amount should waste or be forfeited because of the Respondent/ Complainant’s incapability to pay the subsequent premium amounts due to the financial crunch that the Respondent/Complainant had to pass through at the relevant point of time.

 

Perused the papers on record.

 

Admittedly, there was a payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the initial premium.  Admittedly, there were also non-payment of two successive premiums in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

It appeared from the letter dated 27-09-2012 that the Respondent/Complainant was supplied with the copy of the terms and conditions of the policy along with the Proposal Form so that Respondent/ Complainant might have a prior knowledge about the policy before he could finally take the decision about investment.

 

Moreover, the Appellants/OPs, by virtue of the initial investment of the Respondent/Complainant, have already covered the life risk of the Respondent/Complainant for the corresponding year.  Therefore, there can be no claim for the said investment to be refunded particularly while the policy has been lapsed because of the non-payment of subsequent premiums.

 

We have gone through Paragraph 4.1 of the policy at running Page No. 60 wherein it has been spelt out in unequivocal terms, “Premium are payable on the due dates and at the rate mentioned in the Policy Certificate.  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 case of monthly mode is allowed.  If a premium is not paid during the days of grace, the policy shall lapse and no benefit shall be payable.  If a premium is not paid during the days of grace, after three full years’ premium have been paid and the policy has been in force for the full Sum Assured for those three policy years, the benefits payable under the policy shall be as indicated in clause 4.4 hereof’.

 

The insurance policy is a contract between the Insurer and the Insured where both parties are tied down under the terms of the contract which is irrevocable.  The respondent/Complainant on the instant occasion has violated the terms of the contract which has led the policy being lapsed as per provision of contract.

 

Further, Appellant/OP’s allegation about the two invalid cheques issued by the Respondent/Complainant for payment of his successive premiums being dishonoured by the banks on which the cheques were issued for genuine reasons, indicates that the Respondent/Complainant did not approach the Ld. District Forum with clean hands.

 

Such being the circumstances, we are unable to entertain the Respondent/ Complainant’s prayer for the refund as prayed for.

 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

 

That the Appeal is allowed.  The impugned Judgment and Order is set aside with consequent dismissal of the complaint case. No order as to cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.