UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

    This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum , CDF/Unit-I in complaint case No. 297/2013 dismissing the complaint ex parte without cost against the OP .

          The facts of the compliant , in brief , were that the Appellant /Complainant , being allured by the exaggerated presentation of prospect of the policy of the agent of the Respondents/OPs , invested money in East Life Policy (ELP) 1952245 sponsored by the Respondents /OPs .

          The said agent collected 12 instalments of quarterly premium each @ Rs. 2500/- , to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- but deposited only 10 instalments and suddenly stopped collecting premium thereafter . The said agent , however, confirmed collection of 12 quarterly instalments @ Rs. 2500/- each .

          The Appellant/Complainant, after a lapse of almost one year , received a phone call from the office of the Respondents/OPs wherefrom the Appellant/Complainant came to know about non-payment of two instalments . When contacted personally  by the Appellant/Complainant , the Respondents /OPs asked the Appellant/Complainant to continue the subject policy for five years so as to save the policy from being lapsed and also asked him to pay further an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for such non-payment of two instalments which , as told above , was collected by the said agent from him but did not deposit with the company .

          The Appellant/Complainant who was entitled to get refund of the money on completion of three year policy period was apprehensive of being deprived of his lawful entitlement to refund on the plea of alleged non-payment of two instalments and accordingly , resorted to the District Forum filing the complaint petition praying therein for the refund of the principle amount including the interest accrued thereon together with cost and compensation .

        The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondents/OPs .

       The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, while defending his claim , drew the notice of  the Bench to Article 5 (a) of the policy document which read , “ After completion of the first three Policy Years the Policy may be surrendered by the Policyholder and a Surrender Value  shall be payable provided the Regular Premium due for more than one Policy Year has been received by us. The Surrender Value will be equal to the Value of Units pertaining to Regular Premium less the Surrender Charge on Units pertaining to Regular Premium, as mentioned in the Schedule, plus the value of Units pertaining to Top Up premium, if any. ”

          As contended, according to the said Article of the policy document, the Appellant/Complainant was entitled to get refund of the amount invested with the policy by him but , by creating a plea for non-payment of two instalments and asking the Appellant / Complainant to continue the policy for 5 years with instant deposit of Rs. 20,000/- more , Respondents /OPs disregarded the provisions envisaged under Article 5 (a) of the policy documents .

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order .

          Perused the papers on record . We did not find any document corroborating the payment of 12 quarterly instalments barring and excepting the averment and communications of the Appellant/Complainant only which cannot be relied upon. We did not have any receipt corroborating collection of the instalment amounts by any agent of the Respondents/OPs. The alleged agent was not made a party to the Complaint leaving no scope to ascertain  by examining her the veracity of the statement of the Appellant/Complainant towards actual number of instalments collected by her.

          The communication made to the Respondents/OPs by the Appellant / Complainant were all unilateral without any communication in response from the Respondent/OPs in corroboration  of the alleged deposit of 10 or 12 instalments of policy premiums .

          The issue would have attracted the provisions of Article 5 (a) of the policy document had there been any document substantiating the payment of policy premiums as required under the said provision .

          On the instant occasion, the Appellant, himself was a Ld. Advocate and expectedly had an idea about the necessity of furnishing the receipts in support of payment of the policy premiums. The case record was absolutely devoid of any document mentioned above. There was not even a copy of the policy itself to be verified and be confirmed about its existence.

          Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum had made no mistake by passing the impugned order and accordingly, the same does not deserve any intervention from our end.

          Hence,

                                                          Ordered

that the   Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.