I see lot's of good math here, but your repeated question of "Why are we adding (k+1)(k+2)?" leads me to believe you're looking for something a little different. (Of course, I could be completely wrong. If so, then pardon my rambing here.)
Try this:
Induction proofs often start with a formula that looks like
EQ $1.$ $\ $ term$_1$ + term$_2$ + ... + term$_n$ = $f(n)$
where $f(n)$ is a relatively simple function of $n$. We prove true for $1$, which is usually trivial, then assume it holds for $k$, so we have
EQ $2.$ $\ $ term$_1$ + term$_2$ + ... + term$_k$ = $f(k)$
Then we're supposed to prove it's true for $k+1$. OK, here's what no one is explicitly telling you. When you want to prove it's true for $k+1$, we take advantage of the fact that we know what those terms that make up the left-hand side of EQ $1$ look like, and that if we add the $k+1$ term to both sides of EQ $2$, then the new left-hand side looks like the first half of what we're trying to prove:
$\ $ term$_1$ + term$_2$ + ... + term$_k$ + term$_{k+1}$ = $f(k)$ + term$_{k+1}$
So, if we can do the algebra and rearrange that right hand side so it looks like $f(k+1)$ is supposed to , then we've got our proof. Here's where you plug $k+1$ into $f()$, to see what you're trying to manipulate that right-hand side to look like. If we can use algebra (or some other method) to show that
$f(k)$ + term$_{k+1} = f(k+1)$
then we've shown that adding the $k+1$ term makes the sequence equal to $f(k+1)$, which is what it means for the formula to be "true" for $k+1$.
Once you understand this, then the real trick to any of these is finding the right cool algebra trick to rearrange $f(k)$ + term$_{k+1}$ to get what you want, which is why so many of the answers you're getting focus on that aspect. It's the common question implied when someone says they don't get a particular induction proof.
(Note: This is a simple model with additive terms. Sometimes the pattern on the left is more complex and you have to figure out what you have to do to both sides to get from the $k$ to the $k+1$ case.)
(Also Note: This is just a verbose and somewhat less generalized case of what some of the above answers already say. However, I find that often students don't translate the symbology as readily as we "experts" (heh), especially in the early stages of learning a new concept, so I thought one more exposition from another tact might help.)