Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/30/2014

Miss. Tallam Chintala Bhavana, D/o T. Arunakar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Thota V. Ramesh

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:19.06.2014

Order Date: 15.07.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.30/2014

 

Between

 

T.C.Bhavana,

D/o. T.Arunakar,

15/1-67, GS Car Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Executive Director,

            ICICI Prue Life Tower,

            1089, Appa Sahib Marathe Marg,

            Prabhadevi,

            Mumbai – 400 025.

 

2.         The Executive Vice President,

            ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Lt.,

            Vinod Silks Mills Compound,

            Chakravarthi Ashok Nagar,

            Ashok Road,

            Kandivalli East,

            Mumbai – 400 101.

 

3.         The Branch Manager,

            O/o. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            6-2-83, Bhavani Nagar,

            K.T.Road,

            Tirupati.

 

4.         Miss Bharathi,

            Agent Code No.00151827 ICICI Bank,

            1-14-577, Tilak Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties..

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.06.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri. Thota V.Ramesh, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.C.S.Chandra Sekhar, counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3, and opposite party No.4 remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs against opposite parties 1 to 4, 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as assured along with interest at 18% p.a., 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the litigation and 4) to grant such other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-   that the mother of the complainant (complainant in C.C.No.29/2014) as proposer to complainant has obtained a policy and paid the premiums continuously for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and again in the year 2012 and 2013, after completion of 3 years, complainant has paid two more premiums in advance, so as to get some benefits while surrendering the policy as stated by opposite party No.4. When she asked to refund the sum assured, opposite party No.4 did not turn-up and paid deaf ear, inspite of complainant’s personal visits to the office of opposite party No.3, they necked out the complainant and refused to pay the sum assured. Totally she has paid Rs.5,00,000/-, which was refused by opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.4 remained exparte.

            4.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed written version stating that ICICI issued Pru Assure Wealth-Super (UIN 105L098V01), policy No.14025997, in the name of life assured T.C.Bhavana (complainant) on 12.06.2010. The complainant is no other than the daughter of complainant in C.C.No.29/2014. She is studying M.B.B.S. as on the date of policy. Smt.T.Arunakar is the proposer, life assured is T.C.Bhavana. The policy is issued on 12.06.2010 in the name of complainant, premium amount is Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, frequency is yearly, premium paid is Rs.3,00,000/-, the next premium is due on 12.06.2013. Every policy document sent by the company is accompanied by a forwarding letter, which clearly mentioned that in any case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, he / she can withdraw / return the policy within 15 days, but the complainant chose to retain the policy, thereby implied that she has agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy and paid three annual policy premiums amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. While furnishing the details of payments, the opposite parties have furnished payments made under policy No.14028322 instead of 14025997. The policy No.14028322 pertains to the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 but not to the policy of the complainant herein. It appears that the opposite parties have filed the copy of written version that was filed in C.C.No.29/2014 without furnishing the payments made under policy No.14025997.

            5.  The opposite parties further contended that the complainant herein by name T.C.Bhavana, has taken 2 more policies bearing Nos.17107576 on 30.10.2013 under application number PA46492812 and another policy bearing No.17885946 on 05.07.2013 under application No.PA47269461 dt:05.07.2013. She had paid the premiums for policy No.17107576 through Cheque No.001217 on 24.10.2012 and for the policy No.17885946, she had paid premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.001286 on 11.07.2013, both the cheques were drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. The opposite parties have denied the payment for 2 premiums for the years 2013 and 2014 for the policy No.14025997. The complainant thus has paid only 3 premiums for the policy No.14025997 but not 5 policy premiums as alleged, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, that the complaint is baseless, false and frivolous and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. The opposite parties have mentioned number of decisions in their written version but none of the decisions were filed before this Forum.

              6.  Complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their chief affidavits P.W.1 and R.W.1 and also filed their written arguments respectively. Exs.A1 to A6 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B5 for the opposite parties were marked.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether the complainant has paid 5 policy premiums as contended?

            (ii)  Whether the acts of agent are liable on the master / principal?

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):- it is pertinent to state that the complainant is under obligation to prove that she has made 5 yearly premium amounts to the opposite parties 1 to 3 either through opposite party No.4 or by way of cheques, by way of DDs or by way of electronic system as mentioned in the policy. The opposite parties have fairly admitting that they received only 3 annual premiums from the complainant for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, that such is the case, the burden is on the complainant to prove the payments of the premiums for the years 2013 and 2014. Nowhere in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of P.W.1(complainant) or in the written arguments or under the notices Exs.A2 and A5, on which date the yearly premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the year 2013 was made and on which date the another premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the year 2014 was paid? to whom those amounts were paid? where those amounts were paid? etc. So far as the last two payments are concerned i.e. for the years 2013 and 2014, the complainant herein as well as the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 were placing reliance only on the statement of account under Ex.A4, which stands in the name of Sri Teja Dresses Pro: Arunakar dt:02.07.2014, according to which a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was debited on 26.10.2012 through cheque No.001218 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same date under cheque No.001217 was debited. Similarly another debit of Rs.1,00,000/- was shown on 15.06.2013 through cheque No.001285 at page.3 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was shown in the debit column on 05.07.2013 through cheque No.001286. Whether the amounts covered under ExA4 were paid into the policy number 14025997 of the complainant herein or the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014.

            9.  The complainant herein is an MBBS student by the date of policy and the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 is a graduate doing ready-made garments business. Admittedly, both of them are claiming that they have paid the premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each in policy No.14028322 and 14025997 i.e. totally a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The opposite parties in their written version and also in chief affidavit specifically mentioned that the complainant herein Bhavana has also taken 2 more policies bearing Nos.17107576 on 30.10.2012 under application No.PA46492812 and paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque No.001217, which was covered by            2^nd entry in page.1 of Ex.A4 and also taken another policy No.17885946 on 05.07.2013 under application No.PA47269461 and paid premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.001286, which is covered by the entry at page.3 of Ex.A4. These specific contentions of opposite parties were not denied by the complainant. There are 2 more entries in Ex.A4, which were not reflected anywhere in this complaint and another complaint in C.C.No.29/2014, for what purpose those transactions were taken place, in whose favour those cheques bearing Nos.001218 and 001285 were issued, whether those cheques were issued by the complainant herein or the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014. Under the above two cheques, neither this complainant nor the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 are  expected to say that they have paid Rs.4,00,000/- for the policies of this complainant and the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 at Rs.2,00,000/- under each policy. If really this complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/-, as per Ex.A1 the sum assured is Rs.5,00,000/-, why she is claiming only Rs.5,00,000/-, which was said to have been paid by her without claiming Guarantee Addition (GA). Since both the complainant herein and the complainant in C.C.No.29/2014 are claiming that they have paid yearly premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the year 2013 and another Rs.1,00,000/-for the year 2014, totaling Rs.2,00,000/- under each policy only on the basis of Ex.A4, which is one and the same in both the cases, the claim of the complainants cannot be sustained. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has paid only 3 premiums as admitted by the opposite parties and failed to prove that she has paid 5 yearly policy premiums. Accordingly this point is answered.       

            10.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that when the opposite parties 1 to 3 have accepted the agency of Miss Bharathi - opposite party No.4, whatever the acts done by the agent are deemed to have been done by the master / principal i.e. opposite parties 1 to 3. If anything goes wrong with opposite party No.4, necessarily opposite parties 1 to 3 have to bear the liability for the acts done by their agents, provided the complainant has to prove that those amounts were paid to the agent. Here in this case, nowhere it is specifically mentioned that cheques covered by Ex.A4 were handed-over to opposite party No.4 or that the opposite party No.4 has collected all the yearly premiums and deposited the same with opposite parties 1 to 3 or collected and failed to deposit any of the premiums to opposite parties 1 to 3 by the agent. Accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, basing on the discussion made in point No.1 and the pleadings as well as evidence affidavit and written arguments and also Exs.A2 and A5, it can be safely held that the complainant is entitled to only        3 premiums that were admitted by the opposite parties for the years from June 2010 to June 2012 with interest as per the terms and conditions of the policy or for the amount already paid with surrender value as contemplated in the policy. The complainant is not entitled for the amounts alleged to have been paid for the years 2013 and 2014. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            12.  Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to only for the premium amounts paid for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 with surrender value along with interest thereon as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the policy under Ex.A1 and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay / refund the amount paid for 3 yearly premiums at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per premium for a period of 3 years from 2010 to 2012 with interest and surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy / policy certificate under Ex.A1. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the policy amounts of Rs.3,00,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. Rest of the claim is hereby dismissed.                                     

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of July, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                         

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

PW-1: Smt. Tallam Arunakar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

RW-1:  Nagalaxmi Shetty (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Copy of Policy No.14028322 in the name of Complainant. Dt: 19.06.2010.
	Office copy of notice with postal receipts. Dt: 21.05.2014.
	Office copy of reply notice issued to Complainant by Opposite Parties. Dt: 05.06.2014. (Original)
	A true copy of Bank statement of the complainant showing payments made to opposite parties. Dt: 02.07.2014.
	Rejoinder issued to the opposite parties along with postal receipt.  Dt: 03.07.2014.
	Returned covers of the Opposite Party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	A photo copy of proposal form. Dt: 10.06.2010.
2.	A photo copy of Policy.
3.	A photo copy of Application along with first premium deposited SBH cheque bearing No.001218 for policy bearing No.17109558. Dt: 24.10.2012
4.	A photo copy of Application along with first premium deposited SBH  cheque bearing No.001285 for policy bearing No.17832407. Dt: 14.06.2013. and Medical Examination Report.
5.	A photo copy of reply to notice Dt: 21.05.2014.

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

  Copies to:-   1. The Complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties 1 to 4.