The General Maqnager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co, 2) Sheetal Deodhar, Manager Customer Service ,ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:09.03.2010 Date of Order: 09.09.2010 2 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. COMPLAINT NO: 524 OF 2010 V. Anjinappa S/o. Venkata Shammappa R/at Kennamangala Village And Post, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District Bangalore 562 110 Complainant V/S 1. The General Manager ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. No. 32, ACR Tower, Residency Road Bangalore 560 025 2. Sheetal Deodhar Manager Customer Service ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. No. 32, ACR Tower, Residency Road Bangalore 560 025 Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that the complainant had taken policy from the opposite party on 21.05.2005. Yearly premium was Rs. 12,000/-. The complainant has paid premium for 5 years. Total amount paid by the complainant is Rs. 60,000/-. Complainant submitted application for cancellation of the policy and demanded Rs. 60,000/- paid by him. The opposite party paid Rs. 31,000/- instead of Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, the complainant filed the case against opposite party directing them to pay the balance amount of Rs. 29,000/- with compensation. 2. The opposite party submitted defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable. There is no liability to refund balance amount of Rs. 29,000/-. The policy is a legal document. Policy holder is bound by the terms and conditions. As per clause 4.8 the surrender value shall be equal to the percentage as mentioned in the table below: No. of policy years for which the premiums are paid % of the value of the unit fund 1 10% 2 20% 3 30% 4 40% 5 50% 6 60% 7 70% 8 80% 9 90% 10 years and above 95% 3. The complainant has paid premium for 5 years and accordingly 50% of the value of the unit funds becomes payable. On request of the complainant the actual surrender value payable comes to Rs. 31,140/- which was credited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party submitted that complaint is not entitled for Rs. 29,000/- balance amount and requested to dismiss the complaint. 4. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. 5. Arguments are heard. 6. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for amount of Rs. 29,000/- from the opposite party? 7. I have gone through the pleadings of parties and documents. The policy called Life Insurance Invest Shield - Life is produced. Date of commencement of policy is 24.05.2005 and date of maturity is 24.05.2035. The premium amount is Rs. 12,000/- p.a. It is admitted fact that the complainant had paid 5 years premium amounting to Rs. 60,000/-. There is absolutely no dispute with this respect. It is also not in dispute that complainant requested for cancellation for policy and demanded refund of amount. The opposite party as per the terms and conditions of the policy refunded Rs. 31,140/- to the complainant and the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant. This is also admitted fact. As per the terms and conditions of policy the surrender value of policy for 5 years premium paid is 50% of the value of the unit fund. As per policy terms and conditions the value of the unit fund was Rs. 62,280/- and accordingly as per the terms of the policy the opposite party has paid 50% on that amount i.e. 31,140/- to the complainant and that amount was credited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency can be attributed to the opposite party. The terms and conditions of policy are binding on the parties. The complainant is not entitled over amount than the surrender value. The opposite party No. 1 acted as per the terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, no fault could be found with the opposite party. The question of ordering opposite party to pay balance amount of Rs. 29,000/- does not arise. No doubt the complainant had been put to loss because he has paid Rs. 60,000/- but received only Rs. 31,140/-. But we cannot help him because the parties to the document are bound by the terms and conditions of document. The policy of insurance being a contract entered into between complainant and opposite party and terms and conditions of policy are binding on him, the Consumer Forum cannot direct the opposite party to pay the amount against the terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 8. The complaint is dismissed. 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT I concur the above findings. MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
