ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SULEKH KUMAR
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S.CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER -
(1.) THIS revision petition has
been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.11.2012 passed
by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in
short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1769 of 2011 - ICICI
Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sulekh Kumar by which,
while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint
partly was upheld.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased policy for Rs.90,000/ - from OP No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 on
25.2.2006 and paid first premium of Rs.30,000/ -. Even after completion of 3 years period from the date of issue of policy, OP offered Rs.53,754/ - to the complainant instead of Rs.90,000/ - and thus illegally retained
Rs.36,246/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed
complaint before the District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted
that complainant had surrendered the policy and sent request form dated
23.3.2010. As per Clause 5 (i) of the policy, 60% of the value of units subject to the payment of premium was paid for the three full policy
years and Rs.53,735.54 being 60% of value of units was transferred to the
bank account of the complainant. As per terms of policy, complainant was
not entitled for any further payment and OP has not committed any
deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum
after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay
Rs.36,246/ - along with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay
Rs.2,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation expenses.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission
vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed surrender request along with application before the State
Commission, but Learned State Commission without considering that
application has dismissed appeal so; revision petition may be allowed and
matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. On the other hand,
learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned
State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.