Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member
The judgment and order No. 12 dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—I (North) on contest without cost against the Respondents/OPs has been put under challenged in the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant.
The fact of the case, in brief, was that the Appellant/Complainant signed one blank proposal form and handed over the same to the agent pursuing for adopting a policy sponsored by the Respondents/OPs along with a premium amount of Rs. 12,267/-. He was told at the time of opening of the subject policy that he had to pay policy premium for three years—the lock in period—and thereafter he would earn eligibility to withdraw the amount. The Appellant/Complainant, on expiry of the said lock in period, approached the Respondents/OPs only to be informed that he was entitled to get a surrender value of Rs.14,000/-. He was, at the same time, informed that if he paid the policy premium for continuous five years, he would earn the eligibility of getting back the entire premium paid.
The Appellant/Complainant complied with the above suggestion of paying premium for further two years and thereafter, approached the Respondents/OPs once again for paying him back the deposited amount of Rs. 61,462.35 along with interest which remained unheeded hither-to.
The Appellant/Complainant, being aggrieved with the indifference of the Respondents/OPs in respect of his prayer for refund, filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum. The judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum in the said Complaint Case was put under challenge in the instant Appeal.
Heard Ld. Advocates on behalf of both sides. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the policy papers were signed by the Appellant/Complainant without going through the contents narrated in it. As he continued, the agent of the Respondent/Complainant did not explain to the Appellant/Complainant the terms and conditions of the policy.
Ld. Advocate laid emphasis upon his entitlement to special surrender value showing that the Respondents/OPs did not pay to the Appellant/Complainant the said value although he ran his policy for successive five years paying regular premium and thereby fulfilling the criteria for being entitled to the same as per the policy.
He, concluded his submission with the prayer for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents/OPs, per contra, submitted that the Appellant/Complainant was literate person. He got himself satisfied with the policy conditions prior to exercising option, signing the policy papers. He did not raise any objection against the policy within the free look period of 15 days since the date of receiving the policy. He did not even raise any objection for long five years till filing the claim for refund of the deposits. The prayer of the Appellant/Complainant, as he continued, was no less a demand for unjust enrichment and accordingly, was rightly dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.
We have considered submissions of the Ld. Advocates and perused the available papers on record while arriving at the findings narrated hereunder.
Instant Appeal was not better than the series of cases that this Bench of late had come across where the persons on the same boat of the Respondent/Complainant herein tried to resort to an inexplicable plea in their effort to justify their foolish act as an action taken in good faith.
The Appellant/Complainant herein was expectedly having at least that much of literacy to understand that signing a blank policy proposal without going through the contents narrated therein was the other way of unconditional submission to the insurer company and since, the insurance policy was a contract, the parties involved in it are bound by the terms of the same, the policy guidelines on the instant occasion. There was no room for emotion, ambiguity or good faith stated to be prevailing among the parties involved as signed papers bore evidence of considerable weight which the Bench was left with no other way than to take cognizance of.
The policy benefit provisions under Head “surrendering benefit” in its 3rd para had elaborated that the policy would acquire a special surrender value after completion of five policy years. The insured was advised therein to get in touch with the Advisory of the nearest branch office or the customer service centre to have an idea about the value of the subject surrender policy provided the insured had fulfilled the parameters of his entitlement.
On the instant occasion, admittedly the Appellant/Complainant had continued the subject policy paying insurance premiums for successive five years since the beginning of the policy. Therefore, his entitlement towards special surrender value was prima-facie established. The Appellant/Complainant, as revealed from the record, had made correspondences for the payment he was entitled to. We considered the fact that his demand was not in sync with the policy conditions. We, at the same time, appreciated the fact that the Respondents/OPs were also not in the right footing by not allowing the special surrender value which the Appellant/Complainant had prima-facie earned on fulfillment of the policy conditions. There was, therefore, deficiency in rendering services by the Respondents/OPs.
Keeping ourselves within the ambit of the policy terms, we can at best allow the Appellant/Complainant to be paid the special surrender value as per provisions laid down in the policy with a reasonable amount of cost and compensation.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Appeal stands allowed in part. The Respondents/OPs are directed to pay to the Appellant/Complainant the special surrender value as envisaged under the provisions laid down in the policy. The Respondents/OPs are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- and compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony caused to the Appellant/Complainant through their deficiency in rendering services. Entire amount shall have to be paid within 45 days from the date of the impugned judgment and order, failing which, simple interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue to the decretal amount, excluding cost, from the date of default till the entire amount including cost, is fully realized. The impugned judgment and order stands set aside.
