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

====

        Perwinder Kaur Khairwal, wife of Sh.Jasbir Singh, Resident of House No.4254-A, Police Flats, Sector 46, Chandigarh.

                                                        …..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

        1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Madhya Marg, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

        2.     The Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Madhya Marg, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh

                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.P.D.GOEL                                                  PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                               MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Nitin Dubey,  Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the complainant, believing the false assurances & promises made by the agent of OP Insurance Company about good returns, deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, with the OPs against receipt. Though, she was told the policy number as No.06694729, but the policy document was never sent to her.  Then, she wrote a letter dated 30.10.2010 to the OPs (Annexure C-3) to the effect that she has been cheated & misguided by their representative, but it was not replied. Thereafter, she received a cheque of Rs.22,258/- from the OPs as well as an e-mail informing her that the value of her unit is now Rs.89,032.35P and in terms of the same, a cheque of Rs.22,258.08P is being sent. The complainant accepted it, being the part payment, but the policy cover was never received.  However, the letter dated 17.11.2010 issued by OPs shows that her policy has been foreclosed w.e.f. 15.11.2010. It is averred that the OPs, against her investment of Rs.1.00 lac, paid Rs.22,258.08Ps only, even though the value of her units as on the date of foreclosure was Rs.89,032/-. A legal notice was sent to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OPs filed joint reply stating therein that as per terms & conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to make regular premium payments, but she failed to do so. She had the option to return the policy, under the free look period, but it was not done. Based on the information provided in the proposal form (Ann.R-1), the policy bearing No. 06694729 was issued & delivered to the complainant on 23.11.2007. The complainant had never approached the OPs with regard to non-receipt of the policy documents. The complainant, being a well educated person, had signed the proposal form (Ann.R-1) after reading and understanding it. The complainant, though changed her address, did intimate the same to the OPs.  As the complainant had paid only the first premium under the policy, so the alleged benefit was not permissible to her, as per terms & conditions of the policy. It is denied that complainant wanted ‘one time premium payment plan’ as the proposal form was duly filled and signed by her. An amount of Rs.22,258.08Ps, in accordance with the foreclosure clause of the policy, was sent to the complainant through cheque. The policy was foreclosed in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy and the amount paid to her was towards full & final claim and besides this, she was no entitled to any other benefit.  Denying all other material allegations and pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             The case of the complainant is that she purchased one Policy bearing No.06694729 from OPs in the year 2007.  It was a one time premium Policy.  The contention of the complainant is that when she did not receive the policy document from OPs, she wrote a letter dated 30.10.2010 (Ann.C-3). But the OPs, instead of sending her the policy document, sent her a cheque of Rs.22,258/- only against the invested amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  They also sent an e-mail informing her that the value of her units was Rs.89,032.35Ps, but even then they paid Rs.22,258/- only. 

6]             The ld.Counsel for OPs stated that the complainant was duly sent the policy documents, which she received on 23.11.2007.  She never approached the OPs with regard to non-receipt of policy document.  It is also argued that as the complainant has failed to deposit the premium amount after first year of the policy, so the policy was foreclosed in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy and the amount paid to her, under the said policy, was in full & final payment. She was not entitled to any further amount/benefit under the said policy. 

7]             We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant that she did not receive the policy document.  If the complainant had not received the policy document well in time, he should have taken this matter with OPs immediately after paying the premium of the policy, which has not been done.  Moreover, if the policy was not issued to her, she would not have known her policy number. Therefore, this plea of the complainant is totally false. 

8]             So far as the terms & conditions of the insurance policy are concerned, the complainant herself had singed the proposal form (Annexure R-1), wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Life Time Super Plan is a Regular Premium Plan and Mode of premium was Yearly.  Once the complainant is signatory to the proposal form (Ann.R-1), she cannot, at this later stage, wriggle out from those terms & conditions contained therein and say that she was not aware about it.  Therefore, her plea that she had purchased only One Time Premium Payment Plan is also false/wrong.

9]             More so, the Clause of Freelook Period at Annexure R-2 (Policy Document – Life Time Super) stipulates that “A period of 15 days is available to the Policyholder during which the Policy can be reviewed.  If the Policy is not suitable, this booklet should be returned within 15 days from the day the Policyholder receives the Policy….”.      However, as the complainant herself had not returned the policy document within the above stipulated period of 15 days, therefore, now she cannot seek the cancellation of the policy purchased by her alleging false allurement on the part of OPs.

10]           So far as the foreclosure of the policy is concerned, in our opinion, the same has been done by the OPs as per Clause No.9 of the Policy Document, which reads as under:-

“9.    Foreclosure of the Policy.

If full premium for the first three Policy years is not paid and the policy is not revived within a period of two years from the due date of the first unpaid premium, then surrender value as descried in Clause 2.2 will be paid at the end of the third policy year or at the end of the reinstatement period, whichever is later.

11]           As the complainant herself admitted that she had paid only one premium amount, against the said policy, therefore, the act of the OPs in foreclosing the policy, under above mentioned clause, and sending the amount to her, in accordance with Foreclosure clause, is right.

12]           Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil P. Tadkalkar, 1(1996) CPJ 159 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“Moreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia paid by him during the period of the policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk.  If during this period the Complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the policies even though only some fraction of the premia would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the policies the Complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two policies. It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the policies.

13]           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is having no merits and deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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