1. Deb Kumar Guha Ray
2. Aparna Guha Ray,

            Both residing at  Flat No.1A,

            378, Boral Main Road, Kolkata-84,

            (Opposite M.T.M.T.B. Hospital)

            P.S. Bansdroni.                                                                         _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance

            Chitrakut Building, 3^rd Floor,

            230A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-20,

            P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.                                                                 _________ Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                                    Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   28    Dated  06-01-2015.

          The case of the complainants in short is that complainants, Deb Kumar Guha Ray and his wife Aparna Ray, having a joint S/B Account No.033901017919 at Mominpore Branch of United Bank of India, (previously both were  residing at 68, Ekbalpore Road/Kabi Md. Iqbal Road, Kolkata-23) purchased two insurance policies numbering 06151973 and 09499024 with the company on 22.9.07 and 21.7.08 respectively.

            Complainants purchased one policy in the name of Deb Kumar Guha Ray being policy no.06151973 on 22.9.07, the premium of which was Rs.50,000/- per year. One of the terms of the policy was that the policy could be encashed after 3 years, provided the premiums of the period were fully paid.

            Complainants also did another insurance policy in the name of Aparna Guha Ray being policy no.09499024 in 22.7.08, the premium of which was Rs.25,000/- per year, with the same term, that the policy could be encashed after 3 years provided the premiums of the period were fully paid.

            As per the terms of the policy, after the completion of 3 years of the policy no.06151973, complainants went to o.p. office with all required documents and wanted to encash the policy. Then one of the staff / office representative informed the complainants that the matured amount against that policy was about Rs.1,77,000/- only (i.e. including a benefit of about Rs.22,000/- only against the payment of premium of 3 years). But complainants were also advised to deposit premium of another year instead of encashing the amount and he would earn an extra amount about 4% more as Bonus, along with the total deposited amount and the benefit of 4 yearly premiums would be more than the above 3 years benefit. According to their advice complainants deposited another yearly premium for the 4^th year. Complainants deposited the 4^th year premium for another policy also being the policy no.09499024.  

            After completion of 4 years complainants asked the o.p. to encash both the policies. But o.p. paid Rs.1,94,013.59 on 4.10.11 for the policy being no.06251973 and paid Rs.81,346.29 on 27.1.12 for the policy being no.09499024. The amount paid by o.p. for both the policies was much lesser than what the complainants would get from any bank or other financial institute.

            Sole o.p. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v o.p. denied all material allegation interalia stated that the instant complaint is barred by the period of limitation as u/s 24A of C.P. Act. They have submitted that the policies were issued to the complainants in the year 2007 and 2008 and the present complaint has been filed in 2013. Complainants have failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. The insurance being a contract between the policy holder and the company, both the parties are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy documents. The clause 2.2 of the subject policy deals with the surrender of the policy. Accordingly, they have paid the complainants. The surrender value for two aforesaid policies were calculated on the basis of NAV on that day. The surrender request was received by o.p. on 27.9.11 for the policy no.06251973 and on 18.1.12 for the policy no.09499024. Accordingly, requests were processed using NAV as on the date of surrender in accordance with IRDA Regulations. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and as such, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the policies in question were issued to the complainants in the year 2007 and 2008. It is also admitted fact that complainants paid 4 yearly premiums for two policies in question. Thereafter, complainants had opted for surrender of the policies on 27.9.11 and on 18.1.12. In accordance to clause 6(2) of the IRDA Regulations, 2002, every policy document sent by the company is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the feature or the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw / return the policy within 15 days. But in the instant case the complainants did not opt for surrendering their policies within freelook period. Every policy is a contract between the parties. The proposal form is not merely a document to be signed and submitted for formality. It is the basis of the contract of insurance. O.p. has made payment of surrender amount in a bona fide manner and strictly as per the applicable terms and conditions. Complainants duly received and acknowledged the surrender value. When the complainants received the surrender value without any protest the relation between complainants and o.p. as consumers and service provider has been ceased as after receiving of the surrender value no dispute remained between the parties. Moreover, o.p. has paid the surrender value as per NAV as on dates of surrender in accordance with IRDA Regulations. So, we find no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and as such, complainants have substantiated their case and complainants are not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.p.

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