BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1618, 1619, 2151 & 2152/2012

                                                        APPEAL NO. 1618/2012

V/s

                                                         APPEAL NO. 1619/2012

V/s

                                                           APPEAL NO. 2151/2012

V/s

V/s

COMMON ORDER

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred all these appeals being aggrieved by the Common Order dt.05.05.2012 passed in CC.Nos.340/2012, 341/2012, 343/2012 & 342/2012 respectively on the file of 1^st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.  Hence, all these appeals are taken together and being disposed-of by a Common Order.

2.      The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainants that they have obtained Save Guard policy from the Opposite Parties by paying a premium and after acceptance of the premium, the policies were issued.  After obtaining the policy, the complainants failed to renew the policies and subsequently, they approached the Opposite Parties for revival of the policies by tendering a cheque for Rs.21,75,000/-, but, the Opposite Parties have refused to revive the policies and wrote a letter that the said policies are under EL surrender  stage.  Thereafter, aggrieved by the said refusals, the complainants have filed the complaints before the District Commission seeking for revival of the policies.  After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the surrender value of the policies to the complainants with interest at 12% p.a. along with Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.      Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal.  Heard the arguments of appellants. 

4.      On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the complainants have sent a proposal for policy called Save Guard by paying first premium.  After acceptance of the premium, the Opposite Parties have issued policies to the complainants with respective assured amount for respective policy period.  Subsequently, the complainants failed to renew the policy which became lapsed condition.  Thereafter, they made an attempt to revive the policy by requisition and also made arrangements for payment of the consequent premium to the tune of Rs.21,75,000/- for which the Opposite Party wrote a letter dt.29.03.2011 stating that the said policies are in EL surrender stage and sent back the cheque which was tendered for revival of the policy. 

5.      As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy holder have an option for revival of the policy, but, the Opposite Parties have not assigned a valid reason for refusal of revival of the policies.  They just stated that the policies are in EL surrender stage, hence, rejected.  The grounds have taken for rejection of the revival of the policies is not acceptable.  Apart from that the Opposite Parties ought to revive the policy as the concept of insurance is a social legislation which provides security to the individual whereas the Opposite Parties have refused to revive the policy without any valid reasons.  Even though after writing a letter dt.29.03.2011 they have not paid the surrender value of the policy to the complainants against which the complainants approached the District Commission.  The District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainants.

6.      During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainants have paid only one premium and if they have not continued the policy the amount which was paid has to be forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, they are not liable to get any surrender value of the policy and the amount which was paid was forfeited, therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  Though the complainants paid only one premium, they approached for revival of the policies subsequently by tendering the balance premium amount to the tune of Rs.21,75,000/-, but, they have refused to revive the policy which amounts to deficiency in service.  The Opposite Parties have undertaken to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainants through their letter dt.29.03.2011 when they have undertaken to pay the surrender value the doctrine of estoppel applies hence, the Opposite Parties cannot say that the complainants are not entitled.  As such we found that there is no any error in the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal Nos. 1618, 1619, 2151 & 2152/2012 are dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the complainants.

Keep the original order in Appeal No.1618/2012 and a copy of the same in other cases.

Forward free copies to both parties.

                                                                      Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

                                                              MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*