STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 516 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 04.12.2013 |
Date of Decision | | 11.02.2014 |
1.Max Life Insurance Co. Limited, formerly known as Max New York Life Insurance Co. Limited through its Chairman/Branch Manager, Registered Office at Max House, 1, Dr. Isha Marg, New Delhi – 110020.
2.Max Life Insurance Co. Limited, formerly known as Max new York Life Insurance Co. Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.38-39, 1st
……Appellants/Opposite Parties.
Versus
Sh. Amarjeet Singh Randhawa S/o Harbans Singh Randhawa R/o H.No.82, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-
“12. So finding merit in the complaint, we allow this complaint against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the fund value of the balance units in the name of complainant immediately without deducting any surrender charges taking the NAV of today i.e. 14.08.2013. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the harassment caused to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
13. The order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
“4. SURRENDER
You may by giving us a prior written request, surrender this policy, at any time after the completion of first policy anniversary, provided an amount equal to one ATP has been paid by you. Upon our receipt of your signed request for surrender value of the policy, this policy will immediately terminate, however, the surrender, if any, prevailing at the time of effecting the surrender shall be paid only after the completion of third policy anniversary.
5 to 12. 13. TERMINATION OF POLICY.
This policy will terminate immediately upon the earlier of the following events:
i) The date upon which we receive your surrender request under Section 4.
ii) On payment of Maturity Benefit.
iii) On death of life insured.
iv) If at any time, after the third policy anniversary, the Fund value equals to or is less than one ATP, the policy will terminate and will pay the surrender value (if any).
14. LAPSE.
14.1 14.2
a)
b)
c)
B. Surrender charges.
Year | Surrender Charge (As a % of annual target premium) |
1 | *100% |
2 | 50% |
3 | 42% |
4 | 40% |
5 | 35% |
6 | 30% |
7 | 25% |
8 | 20% |
9 | 15% |
10 | 10% |
11 and onwards | 0% |
*In year one, surrender charge shall be levied at the rate of 100% of one ATP or Fund Value at the time of surrender, whichever is lower. |
14.
15.
16. InExport Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Versus M/s Garg Sons International’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Para 8 held as under:-
“8. It is settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties.(2010) 10 SCC 567 = 2010 (3) CPC 222 S.C.).”
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Pronounced.
February 11, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.516 of 2013)
Argued by:
Dated the 11th
ORDER
2.
3.
4. , Civil Appeal No.9191 of 2003 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2009, it was held that “…..a more liberal view should have been taken by the National Commission and it should have condoned the delay of 70 days and should have decided the appeal on merits.”
5.
6. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER | Sd/- (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER |
| |
| [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] |
| PRESIDENT |
| |
| [HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ] |
| MEMBER |
| |
| [HON'ABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY] |
| MEMBER |
