D.O.F. 21.02.2011
D.O.O. 27.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 27th day of April, 2012.
C.C.No.63/2011
Janardhanan K.
S/o. Paithal Nair, : Complainant
‘Sagar Jyothi’, P.O. Pothuvacheri,
Kadachira (Via), Kannur Dist.
(Rep. by Adv. M. Govindankutty)
1. The Managing Director,
ICICI Prudential Life Insuarance Company Ltd.,
Vinod Silk Mills Compound,
Chakravarthy Ashok Road,
Ashok Nagar, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai, 400 101.
2. The Manager, : Opposite Parties
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Adithya Tower, Opp. R.T.O. Office,
Kannur-2.
(OP 1 & 2 Rep. by Adv. K.V. Manoj Kumar)
3. Ratheesan C.C.,
Insurance Adviser,
Vala Valappil House,
Adoor, P.O. Kadachira,
Kannur Dist.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12% from 20.09.2007 with bonus till realization with ` 25,000 as compensation with cost.
The complainant’s case is that as induced by 2nd and 3rd opposite party, he had invested ` 25,000 with 2nd opposite party on 18.09.2007 with the policy Smart Kid New Unit linked R.P. having No. 06084402 and the date of commencement is on 18.09.2007. The 2nd and 3rd opposite party represented to the complainant that if the complainant invest ` 25,000 each for 3 consecutive years, he will get ` 1,50,000 after completion of 3 years which includes guaranteed bonus and interests and if the complainant is not willing to invest more amount after one year, definitely he will get guaranteed bonus and interest apart from `25,000. After the investment of ` 25,000, the opposite parties again persuaded the complainant to invest more, but the complainant told that he will invest more only after the completion of existing policy. The one year policy period is over on 18.09.2008 and after that the complainant along with 3rd opposite party approached 2nd opposite party and offers his willingness to surrender the policy. But 2nd opposite party told that he cannot surrender the policy this time since there is locking period for 3 years for all deposits and further assured the complainant that he will get guaranteed bonus and interest apart from the invested amount of `25,000 after 3 years. So the complainant availed for 3 years and after lapse of 3 years approached the 2nd opposite party and offered to surrender the policy and filled up the necessary forms to surrender the policy. The 2nd opposite party accepted the surrender application and told him to meet on 21.09.2010. So on 21.09.2010 the 2nd opposite party issued a cheque for ` 3,840 drawn on ICICI bank, Kannur dated 21.09.2010 in favour of the complainant. The complainant encashed the cheque with protest. The complainant lost principal amount, accrued interest and the guaranteed bonus. As a result the complainant sustained huge monetary loss and the 2nd opposite party had wrongful gain. So all opposite parties are liable to compensate for the loss sustained to the complainant. The complainant estimate ` 25,000 as compensation for his pain and sufferings. The complainant is entitled to get ` 25,000 with guaranteed bonus and interest from opposite party. The opposite parties mislead and forced the complainant to invest ` 25,000 to ICICI and hence the opposite parties are bound to return ` 25,000 to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
In response to the notice issued by the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The 1st and 2nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant has subscribed for Smart Kid New Unit linked Regular Premium Policy and issued policy having No.06084402 through the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties denied the averments that 3rd opposite party stated that , if the complainant deposits ` 25,000 in the policy for 3 consecutive years, the complainant would get back `1,50,000 after 3 years etc are false. This statements are against the policy conditions and therefore the opposite parties believe that the said averments are purposely put forth to make a case by the complainant. The complainant had opted the policy only after perusing the terms and conditions of the subject policy in question. The policy was issued to the complainant based on the information furnished in the proposal if there was any mistake or inaccuracy in the policy document, the complainant was free to return the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy as there was an option to return the policy under the provision of free look.” The complainant did not pay the premium for the policy after the first premium deposit at the time of policy issuance and hence committed default. The premium was not paid either on the due dates nor within the days of grace. Hence the policy got fore closed as per clause 8 of the terms and conditions in the policy document. The refund amount of `3840 was sent to the complainant as per cheque No.885586 towards foreclosure of policy. As per the policy condition, if the full premium for the first three policy years is not paid and the policy is not revived within the period of two years from the date of unpaid premium then the surrender value as described in Section 2-2 will be paid at the end of the third policy year or at the end of the reinstatement period whichever is later. The policy of the complainant was foreclosed as per the terms and conditions in the policy document. In this case the complainant has not paid the subsequent premium.
The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite party. So as per the policy condition, the opposite parties are not liable to make any further amount to the complainant. The complainant is barred by limitation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3rd opposite party also filed version admitting that he knews the complainant for the past 5 years. It is incorrect to say that the 3rd opposite party induced the complainant for taking policy. It is understood that a policy name Smart Kid New Unit linked RP was joined by the complainant after satisfying with the policy condition of 1st and 2nd opposite party. It is also incorrect to say that the 3rd opposite party frequently contacted and persuaded the complainant to invest more in the company etc. It is also incorrect to state that the complainant along with opposite party went to the 2nd opposite party and offered his willingness to surrender the above said policy etc. The opposite party had introduced the complainant to 2nd opposite party and the complainant on satisfying the terms and conditions in the policy agreed to the proposal suggested by 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary policy and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for.
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 and B1 and B2.
Issue No.1:
The opposite parties contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. But Ext.A2 is a letter issued by opposite party through which they have foreclosed the policy and issued cheque for 3840 of which is dated 22.09.2010. As per Consumer Protection Act the complaint has to be filed within 2 years of cause of action. The cause of action was arisen on 22.09.2010 and the complaint was filed on 22.12.2011 which is within the time. So it is seen that the complaint is filed within time and issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
Issue No. 2 to 4 :
The complainant’s case is that eventhough he had deposited `25,000 as induced by 2nd and 3rd opposite party as per the representation made by the opposite parties that if the complainant is withdrawing the amount after one year he will get the full amount with bonus and interest. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as photocopy of proposal, letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated 22.09.2010. In order to disprove the case opposite party produced policy document and proposal with related document. According to the complainant the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party induced him by saying that he will get `1,50,000, if he invest ` 25,000 each for 3 consecutive years after completion of 3 years including guaranteed bonus and interest and also assured that if the complainant is not willing to invest more amount after one year, definitely he will get guaranteed bonus and interest apart from 25,000. But admittedly they have given only 3840.07 after 3 years. The complainant deposed before the Forum that “office-Â sh¨v hmbn¨v t\m¡m³ X¶n-Ã. Ahcv ]dª Øe¯v H¸n«p sImSp-¯p.” So it is seen that the opposite parties have not explained the policy conditions to the complainant and get his signature without explaining the conditions of policy. The complainant also deposed that he has no knowledge about the condition that he was withdrawn from the policy within 15 days of joining the policy. Moreover opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that they have explained and made him understand the policy condition. The Ext.B1 policy documents produced by the opposite parties itself shows that it is a very complicated documents, that a common man cannot understand the same. Moreover the complainant is a person having education of 10th standard. He also contended that at the time of receiving policy he was not in station since he is a person working in Merchant Navy. Moreover the Ext.A2 document is a letter issued by opposite parties dated 22.09.2010 stating that they have foreclosed the policy of the complainant. In it, it is stated that “value of units under your policy as on 20.09.2010 is ` 15,360.28”. But they have given only ` 3840.07 to the complainant. But not stated anywhere that how they have assessed and given ` 3840.07. This itself shows the unfair practice on the part of opposite parties. These documents helps to decrease the credibility of the 1st and 2nd opposite party in their dealings with its consumers. So we have no hesitation to say that this type of unfair practice might have shown by the opposite parties at the time of joining the policy by the complainant by suppressing the actual policy condition in order to make unlawful gain. So it is crystal clear that there is grave deficiency of service on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and hence they are liable for the act by releasing `25,000 to the complainant deposited by him with ` 1,000 as cost the proceedings and passed order accordingly. The 3rd opposite party is exonerated from liabilities.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to return the deposited amount of ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) to the complainant with ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the deposited amount of ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) from the date of deposit ie from 18.09.2007 till realization. If the opposite parties are defaulted to comply the order, the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of the policy.
A2. Letter dated 22.09.2010.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Copy of the policy document
B2. Proposal form submitted by the complainant.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
