Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Mumbai Consumer Commission Orders ICICI Entities To Pay ₹77,777
Two borrowers took a home loan from the ICICI group in 2006.
The bank approved ₹7,33,303, but only ₹4,99,543 was actually given to them.
Their insurance premium was calculated using the larger approved amount.
The commission said the premium should have been based on the money actually given.
It found that this caused the borrowers to pay too much.
ICICI Prudential was ordered to return ₹17,777, including interest.
All three ICICI entities must also pay ₹50,000 for the problem and ₹10,000 for legal costs.
The commission did not award the borrowers the full ₹4 lakh they requested.
The Mumbai Suburban consumer commission found three ICICI entities guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The commission said the insurance premium was calculated on the sanctioned loan of ₹7,33,303 instead of the ₹4,99,543 actually disbursed.
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company was ordered to refund ₹17,777, including interest calculated on the excess premium.
The three entities were jointly ordered to pay ₹50,000 compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
The commission rejected the complainants’ larger ₹4 lakh claim but ruled that their complaint was not barred by limitation.
- Who
- Vaikunth Ramnath Nayak and Prashant Vaikunth Ramnath Nayak complained against ICICI Bank Ltd, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.
- What
- The consumer commission ordered refunds, compensation and litigation costs after finding that a home-loan insurance premium was overcharged.
- When
- The order was reported on September 30, 2026; the loan was sanctioned in March 2006 and the complaint was filed in 2015.
- Where
- The case was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban.
- Why
- The insurance premium was calculated on the sanctioned loan amount rather than the amount actually disbursed, and the issue was not resolved despite repeated complaints.
Complainants and Commission
ICICI Entities' Position
Basis for the premium
Complainants and Commission
The complainants argued, and the commission found, that the premium should have been calculated on the ₹4,99,543 actually disbursed because the policy was issued after disbursal.
ICICI Entities' Position
The ICICI entities charged the premium using the ₹7,33,303 sanctioned amount; the article does not provide a detailed explanation of their position on that calculation.
Refund offer
Complainants and Commission
The complainants said the excess charge required correction, and the commission held that ICICI Prudential’s offer to refund ₹8,741 supported the allegation of overcharging rather than being merely a goodwill gesture.
ICICI Entities' Position
ICICI Prudential characterized the proposed ₹8,741 refund as a goodwill gesture, according to the commission’s account.
Limitation of the complaint
Complainants and Commission
The complainants continued pursuing the matter after the 2006 loan, including correspondence in 2013 and 2014, according to the commission.
ICICI Entities' Position
The ICICI side contended that the complaint, filed in 2015 over a 2006 transaction, was barred by limitation; the commission rejected that argument.
- Sanctioned loan
- ₹7,33,303
- Actually disbursed
- ₹4,99,543
- Insurance premium charged
- ₹32,021
- Excess premium calculated
- ₹10,774
- Interest on excess amount
- ₹7,003, calculated at 9% annually from April 26, 2011
- Compensation
- ₹50,000 jointly payable by the three ICICI entities
- Litigation costs
- ₹10,000