BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Smt.Vandana Sharma W/o Late Sh.Rakesh Sharma, R/o H.No.331/1, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  ICICI Bank Ltd., Post Box No.20, Banjara Hills, P.O. Hyderabad 500034, India, through its Managing Director.

2]  The Manager, The ICICI Bank Ltd., B.O. SCO No.129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Branch Manager.

3]  The Customer Service Desk, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakeravarthy Ashok Road, Ashok Nagar, Kandivali, (East) Mumbai 400 101, through its Manager Customer Care.

4]  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Madhaya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL               PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.G.D.Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.3 & 4.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         The husband of the complainant – Late Sh.Rakesh Sharma obtained a Life Insurance Policy with Annual Pension Plan from OP-4 bearing NO.09908784 and paid two premium installments of Rs.15,000/- each vide Ann.C-1 & C-1/A.  Unfortunately, Sh.Rakesh Sharma, died in an motor accident on 28.6.2010 (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  Thereafter, a claim was lodged with OPs on 14.10.2010 (Ann.C-2 & C-5).  The original policy document was deposited with OPs while lodging the claim.  However, the OP No.3 paid only a sum of Rs.37,535/- against the said claim. Rs.37,535/- were deposited in the account of complainant without any information.  It is averred that the complainant was also entitled to the life insurance accident benefit and return on his investment with accumulated interest and bonus thereof, but they did not pay this amount, inspite of several requests, which amounted into the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 filed reply and denied all the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that answering OPs No.1 & 2 have no relationship with OPs No.3 & 4, from whom, the insurance policy in question was obtained.  It is denied that the insurance policy was an extended benefit of credit card. It is also submitted that there is no mention of any particular credit card number in the whole complaint. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       OPs No.3 & 4 also filed reply, stating therein, that the policy in question was a Zero Death Benefit Policy as is clear from Proposal Form annexed by complainant.  Furthermore, it is clear from the Benefit Illustration, which too has been signed by the Life Assured that the Sum Assured : Not Applicable. The Policy in question was issued on the basis of information provided by LA in the application and declaration.  Moreover, the complainant did not return the policy during the Free Look Period. It is also stated that as per Clause No.3.2 of the Policy document, in the event of death of LA prior to the vesting date, the fund value shall be payable to the named spouse of the deceased LA. The amount deposited by the LA was total Rs.30,000/-. The fund value received by the complainant is Rs.37,535.12. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.   

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       The contention of the complainant is that her deceased husband Rakesh Sharma, who was having Life Insurance Policy, unfortunately died in a motor accident on 28.6.2010, whereupon a claim was filed with the OPs, but they paid only a sum of Rs.37,535/- and did not pay the accident benefit, return on his investment with accumulated interest & bonus.

7]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OP Insurance Company argumed that the policy in question was a Zero Death Benefit Policy and the fund value of Rs.37,535.12 was paid to the complainant as per Clause No.3.2 of the Policy Document.

8]       We find merit in the contentions of ld.Counsel for OP Insurance Company. The complainant herself placed on record the Proposal Form as Ann.C-1, duly singed by Rakesh Sharma (since deceased) wherein under Clause NO.27-A – Particulars of Plan applied for, at Page No.18, the Sum Assured/Death Benefit has clearly been mentioned as ZDB i.e. Zero Death Benefit.  Moreover, as per Condition No.3.2 of the Policy Document, annexed with Ann.C-7 at Page-42, it is clearly stipulated that “In the event of death of the Life Assured prior to the vesting date, the Fund value shall be payable to the named spouse of the deceased life assured………..”.  Since, the fund value to the tune of Rs.37,535/- had already been paid to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any other amount.

9]       In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.