cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 4th day of February 2013
Filed on : 15/11/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 636/2011
Between
1. Juddy Bevera @ Jude Bevera, : Complainant
S/o. James Bevera, (By Adv. P.T. Jose, 2nd Floor,
res. at Thekkaykannassery house, K.P.K. Towers, P.O. Link
Near Aquinas College, Road, Broadway, Cochin-31)
Kochi-682 006.
2. Judy Bevera, W/o. Juddy Bevera,
-do-
And
1. The Branch Manager, : Opposite parties
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, (By Adv. K. Lakshminarayanan,
Near Josco Jewelers, XL/9212, Doraiswamy Iyer road,
Ernakulam. Cochin-35)
2. The Chairman,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance,
ICICI prulife Towers, 1089,
Appa Saheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400 025.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainants is as follows:
Complainants are husband and wife. On 02-12-2005 by believing the assurances of one Mr. Shaiju George an insurance advisor of the 1st opposite party the 1st complainant joined the following two life insurance policies with the opposite parties by paying the premium.
Sl. No. | Date of joining the policy | Sum assured | Term of policy | Half yearly premium | Policy holder |
1 | 14-12-2005 | 1,00,000 | 20 years | 3,700 | 1st complainant |
2 | 14-12-2005 | 1,00,000 | 15 years | 4,812 | 1st complainant |
Before the due date of the 2nd premium at the instance of the said insurance advisor the 1st complainant decided to merge the existing policies with the following new policies in favour of the complainants.
Sl. No. | Sum assured (Amount in Rs.) | Term of policy | Yearly premium | Policy holder |
1 | 1,50,000 | 10 years | Rs. 10,000 | 2nd complainant |
2 | 1,50,000 | 15 years | Rs. 1,000 | 1st complainant |
Accordingly the 1st complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- on 17-08-2006 towards premium for the merged policy. Thereafter the complainants duly paid the premium for the subsequent 4 years which amounts to a total amount of Rs. 1,08,512/-. At the time of merging of the policy the insurance advisor stated that the policies shall accrue interest from the 6th year onwards and the complainants can choose withdrawal of interest option from the 6th year onwards. The complainants wanted to continue the policy by paying the premium after deducting the withdrawal chosen in the 6th year but the opposite parties did not do so instead they demanded the entire premium of Rs. 20,000/- without option of withdrawal. Though the complainants requested the opposite parties to provide the details of withdrawal chosen, the opposite parties did not provide the same. So the complainants demanded the opposite parties to refund the premium amount. The opposite parties were reluctant to refund the premium. Thus the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the whole premium amount of Rs. 1,08,512/- with interest, to pay Rs. 12,172/- being the withdrawal chosen by the complainants in the 6th year of the policy together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainants failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have never received any surrender request till date from the complainants under any of the policies. The 1st complainant has failed to pay the renewal payment on due dates and could not keep the policy alive due to his own negligence. The opposite parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has enjoyed the benefits of the policy for 6 years. The opposite parties as per clause 4 and 6 of IRDA Regulation send the policies and terms and conditions stating the free look provision. Despite receipt of the same the complainant never raised any objection during the free look period. The complainants failed to pay the renewal premiums and the opposite parties caused foreclosure reminder letter dated 11- 03-2011. Since the policy were not revived by the complainants the policy got foreclosed on 14-06-2011 as per the policy terms and conditions. The maturity benefit of the polices will be payable as per the policy terms and conditions after the expiry of maturity period. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The 1st complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainants’ are entitled to get refund of Rs.
1,08,572/- being the insurance premium together with its
interest?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 12,172/-
being the withdrawal chosen by the complainants in the 6th
year of the policy?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings to the complainants?
5. Points Nos. i & ii. Admittedly the 1st complainant availed Exts. A1 and A2 life insurance policies from the opposite parties and thereafter availed Exts. A4 and A5 policies in the name of the complainants respectively. The details of Exts. A4 and A5 policies read as under.
Exbts | In favour of | Sum assured (Amount in Rs.) | Benefit | Premium half yearly/yearly (amount in Rs.) | Policy period |
A1 | 1st complainant | 1,00,000 | Anticipated endowment 20 years | Half yearly Rs. 3,700 | 14-12-2005 to14-12-2025 |
A2 | 1st complainant | 1,00,000 | Anticipated endowment for 15 years | Half yearly Rs. 4,812 | 14-12-2005 to14-12-2010 |
A3 | 1st complainant | 1,50,000 | Cash plus | Yearly Rs.10,000/- | 17-08-2006 to17-08-2021 |
A4 | 2nd complainant | 1,50,000 | Cash plus | Yearly 1,00,000 | 17-08-2006 to17-08-2006 |
6. According to the complainants they wanted to continue the policy by paying the premium after deducting the withdrawal chosen in the 6th year of the policy. The complainants stated that the opposite parties decided not to revive the premium after deducting the withdrawal chosen for no reasons explained but also directed the complainants to remit the 6th year premium of Rs. 10,000/- each without option of withdrawal. The opposite parties maintain that the complainants did not request for surrender of the policy and further since the complainants failed to pay the subsequent premium amount they foreclosed the policy after issuing notice to the complainants.
The opposite parties in their version stated as follows:
“4.Withdrwal and Surrender
4.1 Partial Withdrwals:
(a) Partial withdrawals will be allowed after completion of five
policy years and provided that premiums for the first five full
policy years have been paid.
(b) partial withdrawal shall be allowed once in a policy year
maximum up to 10% of the Fund Value at the time or
withdrawal. Any unutilized withdrawal cannot be carried
forward.
7. It is pertinent to note that the said clause does not find a place in Ext. A1, A2, A4 and A5 terms and conditions of the policy. However the opposite parties stated in their version that they are ready to pay the benefits, under partial withdrawal scheme since the complainant failed to submit necessary request they could not process the same. Though the complainants claimed that they have approached the opposite parties to get partial withdrawal of the amount nothing is on record to substantiate the same. Instead of submitting the same before the opposite parties the complainants opted to approach this Forum with the firm belief that their inability to do the needful in time would not disable them from a firm cause or reliefs of the same.
8. The opposite parties contented that since the complainants failed to remit the subsequent premium after issuing notice to the complainants they foreclosed the policies. We are not to accept the said contentions for the simple reason that the opposite parties failed to prove that they have issued notice to the complainants before doing so. Though they have provided Exbt. B9 to B10 the copy of the purported notices issued to the complainants, they failed to prove that they have served the same to the complainants. Since we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we refrain from ordering compensation and costs of the proceedings.
9. To set things right we pass the following order.
i. The opposite parties shall issue the partial withdrawal of benefits as per clause 4.1 as stated above on receipt of a request from the complainants.
ii. The opposite parties shall revive the policies with retrospective effect on receipt of the subsequent premium from the complainants and request for the same.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of February 2013
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Brochure
A2 : “
A3 : Illustration of Cash Plus-Scenario
A4 : “
A5 : “
A6 : Copy of transaction sheet
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Policy document
B2 : Copy of application form
B3 : Policy document
B4 : Copy of application form
B5 : Copy of application form
B6 : Policy document
B7 : Copy of application form
B8 : Policy document
B9 : Foreclosure reminder
dt. 11-03-2011
B10 : Foreclosure reminder
dt. 11-03-2011
Depositions:
PW1 : Juddy Bevera @Jude
Bevera
DW1 : Amar Balagopal
