1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he being influenced by one Apurba Parida, Employee ID No.224757 of ICICI Bank, Jeypore deposited Rs.49859/- in ICICI Pru Guaranteed Saving Insurance Plan which is said to be a policy of one time deposit. The Ops issued policy bearing No.16492085 in favour of the complainant from which the complainant ascertained that the premium paying term under the policy is 7 years and on being approached the said agent stated that although the policy paying term is 7 years, this single deposit will do and the complainant has to make no deposit. Being convinced, the complainant remained with the policy but during March, 2016, the complainant being in need of money, when approached OP.1 to surrender the policy, the OP stated that the policy is lapsed and there is no money payable to the complainant. Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.49859/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.3.2012 and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the policy bearing No.16492085 dt.23.3.2012 issued in favour of the complainant and they have sent the same to the complainant through Speed Post on 26.3.2012. It is contended that the free look period started from the date of policy received by the complainant but he did not approach the Company for policy cancellation. It is further contended that the complainant was required to pay full premium for a continuous period of 7 years but he failed to pay the 2nd premium and onwards for which the policy acquired a lapsed state on 19.3.2013 and ultimately got foreclosed on 19.3.2015 due to non revival of the policy during stipulated period. It is also further contended that the complainant for the first time approached the Company in March, 2016 with allegation that he was mis-sold the policy and demands refund of premium paid and the complainant was informed that since the policy has been foreclosed/terminated, no amount is payable to him. Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases. The Ops filed affidavit. Since the parties remained absent all along in this case, we had no opportunity to hear anything from them. Hence the case requires disposal on merit.
4. In this case, ICICI Pru Guaranteed Savings Plan bearing No.16492085 for policy term of 15 years and premium paying term 7 years issued in favour of the complainant with premium of Rs.49, 100/- for a sum assured of Rs.3, 43,700/- is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.49, 859/- towards initial premium. The case of the complainant is that one Apurba Parida, Agent-cum-employee of OP.1 office gave him impression that the deposit under the plan is one time and believing his version, he invested in the plan but when he found from the policy document that he had to deposit premiums for 7 years. On further contact, the Agent gave clarification that, though the policy term is 7 years that one deposit will do. During month of March, 2016 when the complainant wanted surrender of his policy, he was intimated that due to non deposit of subsequent premiums, his policy has been terminated and no money is payable to him.
5. The Ops stated that they have no knowledge about what happened between Apurba Parida and the complainant but they have followed the terms and conditions under the plan. They further stated that the complainant only contacted them in March, 2016 and asked them to refund the premium but did not take any step during free look period and hence the policy was lapsed in March, 2015 for non deposit of renewal premiums.
6. On perusal of documents it was ascertained that the complainant could know that the policy is not a single premium deposit policy on receipt of policy bond and he was required to pay premiums for 7 years. After knowing the fact, the complainant has approached the Agent but not to the Ops at any point of time then. Only on oral assurances of the agent, the complainant remained with the plan and policy. This shows the negligent conduct of the complainant. His mistake is that without contacting the Ops during free look period, he slept over the matter believing the words of the agent and ignoring the written conditions of the policy. If the complainant was not satisfied with policy conditions, he should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of its receipt i.e. within the free look period but the complainant did not do so. If the free look period is over, the policy conditions become binding on both the parties.
7. Further the Insurance Co. is under no obligation to issue a policy in accordance with any oral promises and assurances. Before signing the proposal, onus is on the policy holder to thoroughly go through the contents of the proposal form before signing on the same but here the complainant has simply placed reliance on the oral promises and assurances of the agent. In this case, the complainant should trust and believe the terms and conditions of the policy after getting the bond and if he knew any variance in the policy bond than that of assurances made by the agent, he should have contacted the Ops. After contacting the Ops, if he is again dissatisfied with the terms of the policy, then he had option to return the policy within free look period. It is also seen that the complainant has not deposited the renewal premiums and hence his insurance policy acquired a lapsed state on 19.03.2013 and ultimately get foreclosed on 19.03.2015. In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and the complainant is not entitled to get refund of his insurance premium.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
