KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.769/12

JUDGMENT DATED:29.10.2013

   (Against the order in CC.628/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam, dtd:26.11.2011)

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                       :  PRESIDENT

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089,

Appa Saheb Maratha Marg,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025.

Also At:                                                                                             : APPELLANT

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

M.G.Road, North End, Ernakulam,

Kochi.

(By Adv: Sri.Binu Sukumaran & C.S.Rajmohan)

            Vs.

Sh. T.Mohammed Ashraf,

32/1510, Kavalath Cross Road,                                                            : RESPONDENT

Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025.

(By Adv: Sri.V.A.Abdul Jaleel & Bindumol Joseph)

JUDGMENT

 JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.628/10 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 26, 2011 directing the opposite party to refund Rs.99,460/- being the premium amount of the policy taken by the complainant with interest.

2.          The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant took a Life Time Super Pension Policy No.04567058 from the opposite party.  PW1 has remitted an amount of Rs.1,46,207/- towards the insurance premium.  On April 14, 2010 by Ext.A1 letter opposite party informed the complainant that policy has been foreclosed with effect from April 12, 2010 and after deducting the surrender charge Rs.36,540/- was received by the complainant.  To the lawyer notice Ext.A3 dated, September 18, 2010 the opposite party sent a reply raising untenable contentions.  The policy conditions are not binding on the complainant as it runs contrary to the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory Laws.  Therefore complainant prayed for refund of the balance premium amount of Rs.1,09,667/- and a compensation Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.          The appellant/opposite party is ICICI Prudential Life Insurance at Ernakulam.  The opposite party in its version contended thus:-  It is true that complainant had paid the premium for the period from February 22, 2007 to April 12, 2008.  Thereafter the premiums were not paid. Therefore the policy culminated in foreclosure.  The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant was advisor of the opposite party.  Therefore he is well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Clause 10 of the policy terms and conditions deals with foreclosure of the policy.  Clause 4 deals with surrender.  If the policy is not remaining within 2 years from the due date of first unpaid premium the surrender value as per clause 4 has to be paid after the completion of three policy years.  Therefore complainant is not entitled to any relief.

4.          Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party, the Manager of the bank was examined as DW1 and he produced Exts.B1 to B4.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed them to refund Rs.99,460/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.          Heard the counsels for both sides.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1.                Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the premium paid by him?

2.                Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6.          It is the admitted case that the complainant had joined an insurance policy of the appellant/opposite party and he paid a premium of Rs.1,36,000/- and that the opposite party is foreclosed the policy with effect from April 12, 2010. Ext.A2 is the said letter intimating the complainant regarding the foreclosure of the policy.

7.          The specific case of the opposite party is that the complainant did not pay premium after April 12, 2008 therefore the policy is foreclosed and that as per the terms and conditions of the policy complainant is entitled to only the surrender value, which was paid to him.

8.          PW1 the complainant testified that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. No document is produced by the opposite party to show the original policy was delivered to the complainant.  That being so, the version of DW1, the Manager of the opposite party that complainant was advisor of the opposite party company and he knew about the terms and conditions of the policy cannot be accepted.  Thus we are of the view that complainant is entitled to refund of the premium amount paid by him.  The policy was taken on February 22, 2007 and surrendered on April 27, 2010.  Complainant has paid the premium of Rs.1,36,000/-.  He has received a cheque for Rs.36,540/-. He is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.99,460/-.  The Forum has directed the opposite party to pay that amount with interest at 9% per annum.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.