State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Prudencial Life Insurance Co. ... vs Prof. Ravindra Shripad Kulkarni, on 12 October, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/11/634
(Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2011 in Case
No. 23/2010 of District Pune)
1. ICICI PRUDENCIAL
LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ICICI PRU LIFE TOWER,
1089, APPA SAHEB MARATHA MARG, PRABHA DEVI, MUMBAI 400025. AND HAVING
ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT ICICI PRUDENTIAK\L LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
FERGUSSON COLLEGE ROAD BRANCH, PUNE 411004.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. PROF. RAVINDRA
SHRIPAD KULKARNI,
PROF. OF MATHEMATICS
AT IIT (MUMBAI), R/AT BHASKARCHARYA PRATISHTHAN, OFF LAW COLLEGE ROAD,
56/14, DAMLE PATH, ERANDAWANA, PUNE 411004.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. P.N.
Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj
Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.H.G.Misar,
Advocate for the appellant a/w. Mr.Shakil Ahmed, Manager (Legal) of
appellant.
None present for the
respondent.
ORDER
(Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member ) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/02/2011 passed by Pune District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.23/2010.
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The original complainant/respondent herein had taken an insurance policy from the original opponent/appellant herein by paying premium of `10 lakhs. The name of policy is Premier Life Pension policy. It is the contention of the respondent/original complainant that the policy issued to him by opponent is not a Pension Policy. They have issued him Unit Linked Pension Policy.
The complainant/respondent further stated that he has received the statement of policy dated 30/09/2008 on 10/10/2008. In the statement, the complainant/respondent noticed that the opponents have deducted an amount of `1,40,000/- in the name of Upfront Premium Allocation Charges. The complainant/respondent was not interested in this policy and hence within 15 days of free look period, the complainant/respondent had informed the opponent/appellant to cancel policy and return the amount of `10 lakhs which he had paid as a premium amount. However, the opponents/appellants had deducted an amount of `1,95,000/- and returned the remaining amount. The complainant/respondent had requested the opponents/appellants to refund the amount of `1,95,000/-
deducted by them. However, they have not paid the amount and hence the complainant/respondent filed consumer complaint praying to direct the opponents to pay an amount of `1,95,000/- towards recovery of policy, `28,000/-
towards interest @12% p.a. on the said amount and `50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony & legal charges & other charges.
(3) The opponents/appellants had contested the complaint by filing the written version contending that it is not the consumer dispute and it does not come under jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. The opponent/appellant further contended that the policy is Premium Unit Linked Pension Policy and the amount of premium was invested in units. The appellants/opponents admitted that within period of 15 days from the receipt of policy, the policy holder has a option either to cancel or to review the policy and accordingly, the complainant/respondent had requested for cancellation of policy in free look period. It is further stated that as per the policy conditions, they deducted amount of stamp duty, re-purchase charges of units and difference in the price of the units because of NAV and after deducting these amounts they have returned the amount. They further stated that they have returned the amount of `8,05,916.98 and `2,139/- on 29/10/2008 and 15/11/2008 respectively. They further stated that they have gone as per the terms and conditions of the policy and they did not owe any amount to the respondent/complainant and hence the complaint may please be dismissed.
(4) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponents, the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of advocates, allowed the complaint partly directing the opponents/appellants to pay `1,95,000/- with an interest of 8% p.a. and costs of `1,000/- within period of six months. Aggrieved by this order, the original opponent had filed this appeal.
(5) We heard Adv.S.G.Misar along with Mr.Shakil Ahmed-Manager (Legal) of the opponent.
The respondent remained absent.
(6) Admittedly, the respondent had taken a Premier Life Pension Policy bearing No.10072325 from the appellant. On the page No.43 of the appeal compilation, there is a copy of letter dated 11/10/2008, which respondent has written to appellants. It is stated in the said letter that I really do not need any life insurance. Your policy also is basically an investment and does not insure anything. So, I am requesting that the policy be cancelled and the premium amount be returned. On page 81 of the appeal compilation, there is proposal form filled in by the respondent. The name of the policy is PLP and amount of premium is `10 lakhs. It is also stated in the proposal form for market linked policy, please choose fund allocation and respondent had chosen an amount of 50% in Flexi Growth Fund and 50% amount in Flexi Balance Fund.
The respondent has signed the proposal form. When the proposal form is signed, it cannot be said that the respondent was not aware about the nature of policy. No doubt, within 15 days of free look period, he has cancelled the policy. The appellants have filed a copy of Notification dated 26/04/2002 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. In the said notification, at regulation 6(2), it is stated that While acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by the letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms or conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period or cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges.
(7) The regulation 6(3) of the said notification states that In respect of a unit linked policy, in addition to the deductions under sub-regulation (2) of this regulation, the insurer shall also be entitled to repurchase the unit at the price of the units on the date of cancellation. Accordingly, the appellants have refunded the amount to the respondent.
(8) The forum below without considering IRDA guidelines has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent/appellant and passed impugned order which cannot stand in eyes of law and IRDA guidelines. The respondent is a renowned academician. However, in the written submission filed during the hearing of the appeal, he has stated that if the order passed by the District Forum is set aside, he will lose confidence in the judicial system. However, we cannot overlook the IRDA guidelines. The learned District Forum without considering the IRDA guidelines arrived at the conclusions which are erroneous. Looking into the facts of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellants. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Appeal is allowed.
(2) Impugned order dated 28/02/2011 is quashed and set aside. In the result, consumer complaint No.23/2010 stands dismissed.
(3) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
(4) Inform parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 12th October, 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member pgg