Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/50

Biplab Karmakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birala Sun Life Insurance Company and others. - Opp.Party(s)

Smti. B.Sur, Mr.S.Mahajan

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  50  of 2014

        Biplab Karmakar,
S/O- Lt. Birendra Chandra Karmakar,
C/O- Sagarika, Jirania Bazar,
Birendra Nagar, 
Jirania.             ........Complainant.
    
                 ______VERSUS______

 1. Birala Sun Life Insurance Company,
Regd, Office at
6th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makhana Road,
Off. Andheri-Kurla Road,
Near Marol Naka, Andheri(E), 
Mumbai- 400059.
         
2. Birala Sun Life Insurance Company,
Customer Care Unit, 
Indiana Business Centre, ''B'' Wing,
First Floor, Marol Naka, Makhana Road, 
Andheri(E), 
Mumbai- 400059.

3. Branch Manager,
Birala Sun Life Insurance Company,
47, HGB Road, Singhapara,
Opp. Sarkar Nursing Home, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        .........Opposite Parties. 
            
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Sovan Mahajan,     
                       Advocate.

For the Opposite parties        : Sri Niharendu Majumdar,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  15.02.16

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Biplab Karmakar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1955. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased a insurance policy from the O.P., Birala Sun life Insurance Company on 14.04.2009, paid premium for 5 years. In April-May, 2011 and in 4th May he paid Rs.8281/-. O.P. No.3 informed that payment was in late so late fee Rs.99/- is to be paid. Accordingly he paid Rs.99/-. Thereafter no information given. Finally on 25th July 2012 written information given by Birala Sun Life Insurance Company that the policy had been repudiated. Thereafter O.P. refunded the amount i.e., premium which according to O.P. was paid after expiry of the premium payment date. Being aggrieved petitioner pray for refund the premium amount paid. Also pray for getting Rs.4 lakhs for deficiency of service, Rs.15, 000/- for cost of litigation. 

2.        O.P. Birala Sun Life Insurance Company appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that this petition is barred by limitation. The complainant was required to pay on 14.04.11. But no  premium received from the complainant. Therefore policy lapsed from that date of non payment. Complainant paid Rs.8281/- in the next month and deficient amount was paid on 05.07.11. So he was asked to pay Rs.188.76/- interest accrued as he did not pay in time after repeated communication. So policy was rightly repudiated. Petitioner therefore is not entitled to get any amount as per terms and condition. 

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination.

        (I) Whether the policy was rightly repudiated and the claim is not maintainable?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get the compensation?

4.        Claimant petitioner side produced original advocate's notice, Insurance Policy, Money receipt, premium payment receipt, original letter which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit 1 series. Claimant petitioner side also examined one witness i.e., the complainant himself, Bilab Karmakar.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced copy of proposal form, money receipt, copy of letters Exhibit A, B, C, D and E. Also examined one witness, Abhijit Chakraborty, Branch Manager.
    
On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the above points.
         FINDINGS AND DECISION:-
        We have gone through the policy documents. Policy was opened on 14.04.2009. Policy was effective from that date for a terms of 3 years. Installments premium was Rs.8379/-. In the policy provision itself written that if the policy holder unable to pay the installment premium by due date he will be given a grace period of 30 days,  during which time all insurance under the policy will continue. So, as per policy the premium is to be paid on 14th April of every year and last premium due date is written on 14.10.11 in the policy. But the O.P. Birala Sun Life Insurance company clearly stated in the written statement that as the premium was not paid by 14th April so his policy was terminated. Grace period of one month not given. In para – iv, itself written in the first, second and third premium paid on 13.04.09, 01.10.09, 16.04.2010. He was required to pay next premium by 14.04.11. In the policy itself it is clearly stated that the last premium due date is on 14.10.11. So, before 14.10.11 the complainant can pay the premium as per policy documents. It is true that due amount of premium was Rs.8,379/-. But petitioner paid Rs.8,280/-. It is less than the due premium. The deficient amount was Rs.99/- which was paid on 05.07.11. It was accepted by Birala Sun Life Insurance Company.  Surprisingly thereafter Birala Sun Life Insurance company claimed interest of Rs.188.76. We again reiterate that last date of premium payment was 14.10.11. Before that date the amount was paid. So, Insurance company should not repudiate the policy certificate or claim any interest, but it did it improperly which is deficiency of service. As per policy documents 3 years  policy term completed. Basic premium amount is Rs.7596/- was paid. Thereafter all premium were paid in due time. Refund of the last premium paid by the petitioner was illegal, improper and we are of the considered view that amount should be taken back and all benefits of the policy should be given to the petitioner considering the policy alive. We have gone through the evidence by both parties, oral and documentary, the proposal form & other documents. Insurance company can not go beyond the policy terms. Insurance policy between insurer and insured represents a contract between the parties. It is the duty of the court to interpret the word in which the contract is expressed by the parties. It is not that court to make new contract however, reasonable. It is settled law that terms of contract is to be strictly read and natural meaning is to be given. Admittedly all premiums are paid. Insurance company is not entitled to get any interest and claim of interest is illegal and it is deficiency of service. 

7.        We do not like to close the policy and the claim of refund of entire amount paid is also not reasonable as per policy terms. We are of the considered view that policy is alive and the Insurance company should take back the amount that he tried to refund. As such policy will continue and benefit will go to the petitioner and family members as such. The Insurance company did not serve properly when they demanded interest and also tried to refund the amount by repudiating the policy. This is deficiency of service & for that deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-  The points are decided accordingly.
    
8.        In view of our above findings over the two points this petition is disposed. Opposite Party, Birala Sun Life Insurance company is directed to revive the policy and give all benefits of the policy after taking back the premium amount that he tried to refund. We also direct the Birala Sun Life Company,  to pay Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand) to the petitioner for deficiency of service and cost of litigation.  
   
                Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.