ORDER

Under section 12(3) of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has prayed for the relief in the form of direction against the Opposite party/insurance company to offer the insurance policy to him immediately for the premium paid by him and also for the cost and litigation charges.

          2. The Opposite party had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.19,437/- towards the policy no.516120317731 with a direction to submit the required documents and particulars on 03.12.16 and on 12.12.16.  The issue of policy was postponed with an intimation that he will receive the refund of premium to his account within 10 days wide Doc.no.1 & 2, based on discharge summary details/Doc.no.3.  In continuation of his efforts and correspondence wide Annexures E, F & G, the Opposite party had expressed its inability to accept the case at that moment, intimating that the application was postponed for a period of 12 months due to recent history of high attitude  cerebral oedema with micro haemmorhage wide Annex.H dtd.09.12.16. It was also intimated to him that the decision to postpone was made on the basis of findings and its internal assessment parameters and the refund of the premium amount was initiated and he will receive the same shortly.

          3. The Complainant being aggrieved, approached the Grievances Redressal Officer of Opposite party on 20.12.16 wide Annex.I and then also the Opposite party reiterated its earlier reply wide Annex.J dtd.27.12.16. The Opposite party issued Annex.L dtd.10.02.17 that his proposal was postponed for a period of 12 months with a request to re-apply on 09.12.17 alongwith all relevant medical documents and then only it will decide to issue or reject the policy.

          4.  The reply given by the Opposite party is being treated as deficiency in service by the Complainant and thereby has sought direction for issue of insurance policy immediately. Sec.64VB(1)  of Insurance Act says that payment of premium in advance is a condition precedent to convert the proposal in to a promise and there must be absolute and unconditional acceptance by the insurance company to complete the contract.  There should be express acceptance of the proposal for concluded contract and hence the receipt of the premium in advance itself u/s 64VB (1) does not amount to a complete contract.

          5. The acceptance is complete only when it is communicated to the offerer. The silence or receipt of a retention of premium amount cannot be construed as acceptance as observed in AIR 1984 SCC 1014

          6.  The argument of the Complainant that Opposite party has reserved the right to accept or reject after 12 months cannot be considered as withholding of the decision about the proposal, because the Opposite party has already expressly intimated its inability to accept at present.  Similarly further contention of the Complainant that the said reply of reserving the right amounts to rejection or repudiation also cannot be accepted, because the Opposite party has not concluded its contractual obligations/terms and thereby it has not become a valid contract.

          7. Expressing of inability to accept by quoting his health report and to advise him to re-apply cannot be considered as withholding of the policy or the amount. The Opposite party from the beginning has been reiterated that he will receive the refund of the premium back within 10 days/shortly and thereby there is no question of withholding of his deposited amount also and thereby the main relief becomes untenable and hence the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

The complaint is rejected u/s 12(3) of CP Act.            

          Supply free copy of this order. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 17^th day of April  2017).