By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.61,789/- to the Complainant towards the loss sustained on account of the decline in the NAV, and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant took a unit linked Insurance Policy wide No.09365143, a life stage Pension policy from the 2^nd Opposite Party through 1^st opposite party. As per terms and conditions, the Complainant was to remit yearly premium of Rs.1,50,000/- for three consecutive years. Accordingly the Complainant paid all the yearly premiums in time totaling to Rs.4,50,000/-. The 1^st opposite party assured the Complainant that the policy could be surrendered at any time after the completion of 3 years and the surrender value will be calculated on the basis of NAV as on the date of surrender. After completion of 3 years, the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite party for surrendering the policy and handed over the surrender application personally to 1^st Opposite Party on 08.07.2011. The 1^st opposite party after consultation with 2^nd Opposite Party intimated the Complainant that the surrender value will be Rs.6,48,000/- based on NAV on the date of surrender. The 1^st Opposite Party promised the Complainant that the amount will be accounted within One week. After one week, when contacted, the 1^st Opposite party informed that the surrender application is send to Kozhikode for process and amount will be raised within 10 days. The same assurance repeated for 1 ½ months. Then the 1^st opposite party stated that the application forwarded to Mumbai office and the amount will be ready by August 2011. Then the 1^st opposite party stated lame excuses again. The Complainant thereafter met with accident and had to spend huge amount for treatment by borrowing from outside. On contact at Kozhikode office thereafter, it is stated by Calicut office that they did not get the surrender application till 20.09.2011. By 1^st week of October 2011, an amount Rs.5,86,211/- was credited to the Complainant's account as surrender value. Since the Complainant submitted the surrender application on 08.07.2014, he is entitled to get at least Rs.6,25,000/- as on 08.07.2014 NAV. But the Opposite Parties have taken NAV of later date which a deviation from the terms. It is deficiency of service and on account of deficiency, the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.61,789/-. Aggrieved by this , the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1^st Opposite party, 1^st opposite party admitted the joining of complaint in the policy and the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- towards premiums. The 1^st Opposite Party admitted the handing over of surrender application by the Complainant on 08.07.2014. The 1^st Opposite Party processed the same to Calicut office on 28.07.2014, by courier service. All other allegation in the complaint is denied by 1^st opposite party. As per intimation from Calicut Office, the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant to approach Calicut Office in person but the Complainant could not travel due to accident. The averment in the complaint that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.6,25,000/- is only imaginary. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite Party contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The 2^nd Opposite Party received the surrender application on 28.09.2011 and not on 08.07.2011. The surrender value of Rs.5,86,211.08 was credited to the Complainant's account on 04.10.2011. The Complainant was paid 92% of the fund value immediately on 04.10.2011 considering the surrender application dated 28.09.2011. As per clause 4(b) of the policy 8% surrender charge is deducted from total amount. All other allegations in the complaint are denied by 2^nd Opposite Party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of

2^nd opposite party.

4. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and called for documents is marked as Ext.X1 series 5 in numbers. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and 1^st Opposite party is examined as OPW1. The 2^nd Opposite Party not adduced any evidence. The Ext.X1 documents are produced by the 2^nd Opposite party as per the order of the Forum. Ext.X1(a) is pay out check list. Ext.X1(b) is the policy. Ext.X1(d) is the surrender application wherein the date shown is 28.09.2011 and it is signed by the Complainant. According to 2^nd Opposite Party, the surrender application is given to 2^nd Opposite party by the Complainant on 28.09.2011 and within few days, the surrender amount is given to the Complainant. According to the complainant, the Complainant had given surrender application to 1^st Opposite Party on 08.07.2011. The 1^st Opposite party admitted the contention of the Complainant and submitted that the same application is forwarded to Calicut office for process on 28.07.2011. The 1^st Opposite Party produced a document which shows that the 1^st Opposite Party forwarded the redemption form on 28.07.2011 to ICICI Prudential Kozhikode for process which is submitted by the Complainant to 1^st opposite party on 08.07.2011. By going through the document, the Forum found that the Complainant gave surrender application to the 1^st opposite party on 08.07.2011 and there is delay of 20 days in forwarding the surrender application to the Calicut Office by the 1^st Opposite Party. The case of 2^nd opposite party is that 2^nd Opposite Party got the surrender application only on 28.09.2011. The Complainant submitted surrender application to 1^st opposite party along with original policy. The Complainant had no case that the Complainant directly gave surrender application to 2^nd opposite party. Along with Ext.X1 document, the 2^nd Opposite Party produced the original policy before the forum. The case of Complainant is that the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the surrender value of the policy was approximately Rs.6,48,000/-. The Complainant got credited with Rs.5,86,211/-. So the Complainant contents that he is entitled for the balance value of Rs.61,879/- from the Opposite Parties. But neither the Opposite Parties nor the Complainant produced the NAV of the surrender date ie on 08.07.2011. The Complainant had not produced any document to show that he is entitled for Rs. 6,48,000/- as NAV as on 08.07.2011. But on evaluating the entire evidence, the Forum found that there is delay in processing the surrender application of the Complainant by the opposite parties which caused some loss to the Complainant. The

Forum found that the delay in processing the surrender application of Complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Since there is no clear evidence as regards to the NAV as on 08.07.2011, the Complainant is only entitled to get compensation from the deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the Complainant for the deficiency of service from their part and the 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) only to the Complainant for their deficiency of service from their part. Both Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only each to the

Complainant towards cost of the proceedings. Both Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of December 2015.

Date of Filing:18.01.2012.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. O.K. Rajendran. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. C.K. Roshan. Regional Risk Manager, ICICI Bank

Kannur.

Exhibits for the complainant:

Nil.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

X1(a) Copy of Payout Checklist

X1(b) Life Stage Pension.

X1(c) Copy of Permanent Account Number

X1(d) Payout Request.

X1(e) Cancelled Cheque.