DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of March 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing : 18/11/2011
(C.C.No.188/2011)
Jean Mole Davis Therattil,
D/o.T.J.Davis,
5/689, Kannimari (PO),
Palakkad – 678 534 - Complainant
(By Adv.M.P.Ravi)
V/s
1.The Manager
M/s.ICICI Prudential Life
Insurance Co.Ltd.
ICICI Prulife Towers,
1089 Appasahib Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025
(By Adv.T.V.Sudarsh)
2.The Manger,
M/s.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd,
Soorya Buildings, Church Road,
Palakkad – 678 001 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.T.V.Sudarsh)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief:
Attracted by the advertisements given by the opposite parties coupled with the information instructions and advises given by one of the agents of the opposite party, the complainant has joined a life stage R.P. Policy which is a unit linked scheme in which the fund values fluctuates according to the ups and downs in the share market. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the 1st installment and the 1st opposite party issued a policy vide No.06750129 on 20/11/07. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- each per year consecutively for 3 years. As per the terms and conditions of the policy there is a lock in period for the policy for withdrawal of the amount upto 3 years. After the lapse of the said period the complainant has approached the second opposite party for partial withdrawal of the amount and has submitted a request for the same on 8/4/2011. At that time the market was up and the fund value was very high. But the opposite party have deliberately returned the request stating that the complainant’s saving bank account details have to be submitted. The branch manager in the branch office has also directed the complainant to furnish Saving Bank account details and to bring a signed blank cheque. Complainant informed the opposite party that she will be satisfied if an account payee cheque or a demand draft is issued in her favour. But the opposite parties have refused the same and rejected complainant’s application. The opposite parties have no authority to demand blank signed cheque or Saving Bank Account details either at the time of joining the policy or at any later stages the opposite parties have not insisted for furnishing the account details of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy there is no such stipulation for withdrawing the amount. The signed blank cheque also not required. When the opposite parties refused to redeem the policy the complainant had sent a lawyer notice dated 23/6/11 to 1st opposite party claiming compensation for the deficiency of service. 1st opposite party replied with false allegation.
The complainant was pregnant while applying for the withdrawal of the amount. With this amount the complainant was intending to purchase an air conditioner to provide coolant atmosphere to the new born baby considering the very hot temperature in Palakkad. Because of the non payment of the amount by the opposite parties the complainant had to suffer a lot of physical and mental agony apart from the financial loss. She had to shift her stay from Palakkad to Thrissur and deliver a child at Thrissur.
The above act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and directing the opposite parties to redeem the policy in part without insisting for the account details as and when an application is made by the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions:
Opposite parties submit that no partial withdrawal request was received by the company from the complainant. The payout request form annexed by the complainant clearly mention to provide a copy of the cancelled blank cheque of the policy holders bank account.As per the company’s norms the above mentioned documents are necessary to process the payout which the complainant has deliberately failed to submit all the documents sought by the opposite parties are as per the prescribed AML guidelines to carry out proper due diligence while processing the payout to the customer. Bank account details are required in the partial withdrawal form is necessary for the purpose of mitigating risk of any fraudulent transactions and also to avoid encashment of the payout cheque by any unauthorized person. As per the company’s process the opposite party does not make any payment in demand draft. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 – A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party 1.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No. 1 & 2
The complainant had joined a life stage R.P.Policy with opposite party. It is a unit linked scheme in which the fund value fluctuates according to the ups and downs in the share market. She had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the 1st installment and the 1st opposite party issued a policy with policy No.06750129 on 20/11/07. She had also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- each per year consecutively for 3 years. After the lapse of lock in period the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for partial withdrawal of the amount and had submitted a request for the same on 8/4/11. At that time the share market was up and the fund value was very high. But the opposite party rejected the application stating that the complainant’s Savings Bank account details have to be submitted. The Branch Manager with branch office has also directed to furnish saving bank account details and also asked to bring signed blank cheque. The complainant stated that she will be satisfied if an account payee cheque or a demand draft is issued in her favour. But the opposite party refused to do the same.
The policy is admitted by opposite party. Regarding payment also there is no dispute. The only disputes is regarding the application submitted by the complainant does not carry the saving bank account details and cancelled cheque. Both parties did not produce the terms and conditions of the policy. In the counter statement opposite party submitted that no partial withdrawal request was received by the company from the complainant. But in the proof affidavit opposite party agreed that on 7/4/11 the husband of the complainant approached to know the procedure for partial withdrawal and next day came without the details, so that the application tendered is not accepted by 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 document which is the application form submitted by the complainant for partial withdrawal carry the signature of the staff of the opposite party with endorsement “Rejected as no a/c proof is submitted.” It shows that the complainant submitted request for partial withdrawal but rejected by the opposite party. The signature or the endorsement is not disputed by the opposite party. Opposite party has raised a contention that they have never demanded for the cancelled blank cheque. But in the Pay out request form annexed by the complainant clearly mentions to provide a copy of the cancelled cheque.
According to opposite parties the demand to produce Saving Bank Account details are as per the circular of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. The said circular is produced and marked as Ext.B1. The relevant portion of the circular is as follows:
“In life insurance business, no payments should be allowed to 3rd parties except in cases like superannuation / gratuity accumulation and payments to legal heirs in case of death benefits. All payments should be made after due verification of the bonafide beneficiary, through account payee cheque, electronic payment methods such as ECS, NEFT system approved by the Reserve Bank of India”.
Here the applicant for the partial withdrawal of the amount is not a 3rd party. The applicant is the policy holder itself. The opposite party would have thoroughly verified the identity of the complainant at the time of issuing the policy.
When the complainant was in need of money opposite party refused to the request for partial withdrawal of the amount may caused to the physical and mental agony to the complainant and it can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. It is pertinent to note that at the time of request for partial withdrawal of the amount share market was up and the fund value was very high.
In the result complaint allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of March 2012.
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – LifeStage RP Policy dated 23/11/07
Ext.A2 – Acknowledgment slip issued by opposite party
Ext.A3 – Copy of Lawyer notice dtd.23/6/11 issued complainant’s advocate
Ext.A4 – Reply to lawyer notice issued by opposite party
Ext.A5 – Bills of Mother Hospital dtd.17/5/11
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 - Photocopy of Policy document.
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
