DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 29^th day of January 2016

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                  Date of filing: 13/10/2014

                                                      (C.C.No.154/2014)       

Sarada alias Sarada Gopikrishnan

W/o.Prof.Gopikrishnan,

No.5/842(2) Shree Gangothri Nagar

Puthur, Palakkad – 678 001                                      -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan) 

Vs

1.M/s.ICICI Prudential Life

Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regd.Office, ICICI Prulife Towers,

1089 Appa Sahib Marathe Marg,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025

2.Madhivanan Balakrishnan

Executive Director, ICICI Prulife

Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Regd.Office,

ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089 Appa Sahib,

Marathe Marg,  Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025

3.Manager

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Vinod Silk Mills Compound,

Chakravarthy, Ashok Nagar,

Ashok Road, Kandivili (E),

Mumbai – 400 101

4. Manager,

ICICI Prudential Office of the

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance,

Near Rappadi, Fort Maidan,

Palakkad – 678 001

(By Adv.Shine Francis)

5.Preetha Appukuttan,

Code 00123065,

Advisor / Broker / Corporate Agent,

ICICI Prudential Palakkad office

of the ICICI Prudential Life

Insurance, Near Rappadi Fort Maidan,

Palakkad – 678 001

6. Manager

ICICI Bank Palakkad Near Rappadi,

Palakkad - 678001                                          -       Opposite parties

(By Adv.M.Ramesh)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant had taken a policy of ICICI Pru Elite Pension II UIN 105L099V01bearing No.14072748 for the period from 23/6/2010 to 23/6/2016 from opposite parties 1 to 3 through their agent  5^th opposite party.

          Opposite party issued the policy in the name Sarada Gopikrishnan. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- through 6^th opposite party bank.  At the time of introducing  this particular policy to the complainant 5^th opposite party has promised that the complainant will get Rs.7,000/- per month as pension out of the policy. She has not informed the hidden traps which is cleverly mentioned  by printing it with most tiny letters. Before taking of the policy, she had never provided and disclosed  the details of the policy. The original policy itself was given to the complainant after the so called locking period of 15 days by 5^th opposite party. Believing the version of 5^th     opposite party complainant has taken policy from  the opposite parties. But contrary to the expectation and assurances she did not get pensionery benefits at all.

The policy certificate issued by the  opposite parties 1 to 4 does not disclose the exact amount of yearly premium. This is a violation of the Insurance Act and other allied laws now existing. So at last, surrendered it on 20^th  February  2014.  On the surrender the opposite parties have issued and disbursed an amount of Rs.6,57,472.18 paise.

The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to opposite parties towards the above referred policy, but now it is seen that the opposite parties credited and invested an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- only i.e. net premium invested. The opposite parties have systematically cheated and looted Rs.105000/- in the head of premium  allocation charges. The justification for these things had though appears to have been stated in the policy document those are not at all capable of easy understanding and grasping. The complainant at least would have  been got 10% monthly interest, if she had deposited the said amount in any banks in India, so she would have been received Rs.504000/- for 6 years as interest. The complainant has obtained only Rs.657472.18 paise . To put it in plain words the complainant has not even received the amount which she has paid as insurance policy amount.

The opposite parties have done deficiency of service and committed unfair trade practice. All the opposite parties are jointly  and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties.   All opposite parties except 5^th opposite party appeared before the Forum. Notice to 5^th opposite party served. But not appeared. Hence set exparte.

 Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed  version contending the following:

Opposite parties alleges that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the present complaint is arising out of an investment policy taken by the complainant for speculative gain. The policy in question is a unit linked policy. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to admit this complaint.

Opposite parties humbly submit that in accordance to clause 6(2) of the  Insurance Regulatory  and Development Authority (protection of policy  holder’s interest) Regulations 2002 the replying opposite parties had sent policy documents to the complainant on 26/6/2010 vide blue dart bearing air way bill No.44053561731. The policy document had clearly mentioned that in case policyholder is not satisfied  with the features or the terms and condition of the policy he/she can withdraw/return the policy under the Free Look period provision. The complainant was aware of this provision and the same is admitted in the complaint. It is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the complainant retained the policy document and did not raise any objection towards the policy during the said free look period with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. It was only through a vide  letter dated 22/10/13 that the complainant intimated the opposite parties her disinterest to continue the policy. The complainant had previously communicated with the replying opposite parties seeking for creation of user ID and password and for premium direction.  However during all these time, complainant did not have any grievance with policy terms. If the complainant is not satisfied with the  policy taken, then she should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt  i.e. within the free look period.  Once  15 days cooling off period is over policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them. 

The complainant had no complaint regarding the policy terms for nearly four years and enjoyed the benefits of it for all these years in consideration of the premium paid. Seeking return of premium amount after availing the service given by the replying opposite parties is against the principle of quid pro quo which is an essential element in any contractual agreement.  It is submitted that the instant complaint is an afterthought, aimed at deriving undue benefit at the cost of the replying opposite parties.

 Complainant had signed on an Electronic Benefit Illustration (EBI) wherein on the face of it the name of the plan along with other details like premium payment term, charges etc. of the plan was clearly mentioned. Opposite parties had provided for surrender value of the policy strictly as per the terms and conditions  of contract, of which the complainant had knowledge. The present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and unsustainable in  law and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties.

6^th opposite party filed version contending the following:

Opposite party is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956  and licensed as a bank under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The opposite parties 1  to 5 have separate entity who are into the business of Insurance against whom the averments of the complainant lies as per the admissions in complaint. No specific averment of any deficiency in service is pleaded by the complainant and hence the complaint is bad for mis joinder. More further the transactions averred in the complaint being relating to insurance transactions are not within the knowledge of this opposite party.

 The complainant is maintaining a Savings  Bank account in the Palakkad branch of the 6^th opposite party bank as A/c No.026201503366 as a joint account in the name of Mr.E.Gopalakrishnan and Mrs.Azhakath Sarada. The transactions of the complainant with the other opposite parties which is a separate entity dealing with the Insurance business and hence not answerable by this opposite party.  The complainant who is a saving bank account holder of the answering opposite party had presented the cheque for Rs.500000/- in favour of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. vide cheque No.710330.  This opposite party had only cleared the cheque from her account as a banker acting as per instruction of the complainant, since sufficient funds were maintained for the clearance of the cheque. This opposite party had never issued any receipt on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5 to the complainant as alleged.

It is respectfully submitted that there is no cause of action arose against this opposite party. The complainant had never approached regarding this matter. There is no deficiency alleged by the complainant and no specific service deficiency was highlighted by the complainant in his complaint. The complaint is not maintainable as against this opposite party. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 

Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A2 are marked from the side of the complainant. Ext B1  to B7 series are marked from the side of opposite parties. 

The following issues are considered

1.Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

2.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3.If so, what is the relief?

Issue 1

Heard. We had verified the documents produced before the Forum.  It is obvious from Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 that the ICICI Elite Pension II is a unit linked policy and is a speculative investment.  The law is well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and the disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. Our National Commission in Ram Lal  Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd in (2013(2)CPR 389 (NC) has held that the policy being an unit linked policy and is dependent on the market volatility and value may go up or may come down depending upon the market condition.  In Unit Linked Insurance policies the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. The investment made by the complainant was to gain profit.  Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The money invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative game and   speculative investment, hence  the matter does not come under Consumer Protection Act.  Hence  complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of our Apex Courts we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as such it is dismissed being devoid of merits.  Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.  Hence other issues need not be considered. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of January 2016.

               Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –   Photocopy of detailes of the surrendred policy bearing No.14072748

Ext.A2  -  Account Statement issued by the Union Bank of India, Palakkad dated

              1/3/14

Exhibits marked on the side of  Opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Copy of proposal form   

Ext.B2 – Copy of terms and conditions of the product issued to the complainant

Ext.B3 – Copy of letter dated 22/10/13 showing disinterest of continuing the

             Policy by the complainant to the opposite party

Ext.B4 – Request letter sent by complainant seeking creation of user ID and password

Ext.B5 – Copy of request  for seeking premium redirection

Ext.B6 – Copy of Benefit illustration of ICICI Pru elite Pension II

Ext.B7 series – Statement of account alongwith IT certificate of

                       A/c.No.026201503366 of the complainant

Cost 

 No cost allowed.