1. Mrs. Hafiza Begum,

30, Sundari Mohan Avenue,

P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata-14.                                                      _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Chitreakut Building,

230A, A.J.C. Bose Road,      

Kolkata-20, P.S. Park Street.        

2. The Director,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

ICICI Prulife Tower,

1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, 

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.                                                         

3. Authorized Signatory,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vinod Silk Mills Compound,

Chakravarthy Ashok Nagar, Ashok Road,

Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.                                              ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   19    Dated   03/02/2016

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainant opened a lifetime policy being no.02269008 in the office of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6.1.06 and issued a cheque in favour of the company being cheque no.911733 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.3 lakhs dt.3.1.06 which was duly encashed, to that effect company issued receipt to the complainant.           

            It was the condition of the policy that complainant will pay Rs.3 lakhs per year to the company for three years, thereafter the policy will be matured and complainant will get Rs.10 lakhs. Complainant’s son Mr. Imran Khan was the nominee of the said policy. After paying 1^st premium complainant could not pay subsequent premiums, 2^nd and 3^rd. Complainant could not pay the subsequent premiums of the said policy.

            Complainant requested to the company to refund the said amount of Rs.3 lakhs but complainant refused to pay.             Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

            In their w/v o.ps. stated that it is a well settled principle of law that when the person has signed a certain document, its contents are liable to be considered as admitted. Hence o.ps. stated that the policy has been issued as per the duly filled in and signed application form and other documents. Apart from the policy document regular SMS was sent to complainant regarding the issuance of the policy and other features of the policy. Then also complainant kept mum and did not approach the company within the free look period for dissatisfaction towards the policy. The terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract. Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution.

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant opened a lifetime policy being no.02269008 in the office of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6.1.06 and issued a cheque in favour of the company being cheque no.911733 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.3 lakhs dt.3.1.06 which was duly encashed, to that effect company issued receipt to the complainant. It was the condition of the policy that complainant will pay Rs.3 lakhs per year to the company for three years, thereafter the policy will be matured and complainant will get Rs.10 lakhs. Complainant’s son Mr. Imran Khan was the nominee of the said policy. After paying 1^st premium complainant could not pay subsequent premiums, 2^nd and 3^rd.

            Considering the above findings we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers in discharging their duties and complainant has been able to substantiate and prove her case and is entitled to relief.  

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointlky 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 complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.            

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.