PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                Earlier the complainant has filed this complaint bearing No.13/163.  It was decided on merit vide judgment dated 01/09/2014 after hearing both the parties. Being aggrieved by the judgment of this Forum, complainant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission bearing First Appeal No.FA/14/836.  The Hon’ble State Commission decided the appeal on merit and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 19/01/2016.  Being aggrieved by the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant filed Revision Petition No.839 of 2016 before the Hon’ble National Commission.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the order dated 06/02/2017 gave the directions to this forum as under:

                  “After some arguments, it has been agreed that the impugned orders may be  set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh in light of the additional documents, which both the parties may be permitted to file in support of their respective case.

        Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh, after considering additional documents filed by the parties.  Both the parties shall be entitled to file additional documents along with the additional affidavit, in order to prove those documents, within four weeks from today.

        They shall appear before the District Forum on 14.03.2017. The District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh within three months of the parties appearing before it.”

2)                In this order the Hon’ble National Commission gave opportunity to both the parties to submit additional documents and additional affidavit of evidence.  Both the parties appeared before this Forum as per direction of the Hon’ble National Commission.  The complainant filed copies of statement of bank account and additional affidavit of evidence of the complainant.  The opponent has not filed additional documents or affidavit.  Both the parties submitted the written notes of arguments.  Oral arguments of the advocates for both the parties are also heard.   On perusal of the statement of accounts filed by the complainant, those were already on record and considered by this Forum in earlier judgment.  Additional affidavit of evidence filed by the complainant is the repetition of the earlier affidavit.  Thus nothing new is filed by the parties. 

3)                As per directions of the Hon’ble National Commission we are reconsidering the evidence on record.  We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by both the parties.  According to the complainant, he had taken a policy from the O.P. namely B.S.L.I., Saral Wealth Plan bearing Policy No.003849557 dated 8^th February, 2010 for twenty years period.  The premium was payable half yearly on every 8^th day of August and February of each year.  The complainant paid premium regularly by cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasai Branch till 8^th February, 2012.  The complainant went to his native place on 5^th September, 2012 at Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh.  He visited the office of the O.P. at Jaunpur for payment of last premium.  He handed over the cheque to the office of the O.P.  The office of the O.P. informed that four cheques deposited by the complainant for payment of premium are not reflecting in the account of policy bearing No. 003849557.  Only one installment of Rs.12,500/- was shown in the account. The office of the O.P. at Jaunpur informed the complainant that two premiums in respect of policy bearing No.004395399 were paid. The complainant has no concern with the said policy as he had never purchased it.  On return to Mumbai, the complainant received letter dated 5^th September, 2012 from the opponent informing that policy will be lapsed on 8^th September, 2012. Vide letter dated 11^th September, 2012, the opponent terminated the policy for default of payment.  The complainant visited the office of the O.P. at Mumbai.  The officials assured the complainant to rectify the mistake.  The complainant issued letters dated 27^th February, 2013 and 19^th June, 2013 to the O.P. but the same were not replied. The complainant had already paid five premium installments and was ready to pay sixth installment.  The opponent wrongly terminated the policy therefore the complainant has filed this complaint to refund amount Rs.62,500/- paid by the complainant towards the premium installments with interest.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh and cost of the proceeding.

4)                The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the opponent issued two insurance policies in the name of the complainant.  One policy covered B.S.L.I. Saral Wealth Plan bearing Policy No.003849557 and other policy covered B.S.L.I. Dream Retirement Plan bearing Policy No.004395399. Policy No.003849557 assured sum of Rs.1,44,000/- for which premium was of Rs.12,500/- payable on every 8^th day of August and February of each year by cheque.  Policy bearing No. 004395399 was for Rs.11,30,000/- for which premium was of Rs.12,506.43/- payable on every 31^st day of November, February, May and August of each year. The mode of payment was through E.C.S.  The first premium under Policy No. 003849557 of Rs.12,500/- was received on 8^th February, 2010.  Thereafter, policy was lapsed on 8^th September, 2010 due to non payment of premium.  The complainant paid Rs.12,500/- on 21^st October, 2011 to reinstate the lapsed policy but the same could not be reinstated. The subsequent amount of Rs.12,500/- was refunded to the complainant on January, 2012.  The premium for second policy was received on 31^st August, 2010 and 22^nd November, 2010.  This policy was lapsed on 31^st March, 2011 due to non payment of premium.  Thus, both the policies stands terminated on 8^th September, 2012 and 31^st March, 2013.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record and additional affidavit filed by the complainant, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :-  According to the complainant, he had purchased only one policy bearing No.003849557.  The premium of it was Rs.12,500/- payable on every 8^th day of February and August. According to him, he had not purchased other policy bearing No.004395399. The opponent has produced proposal forms of both the policies.  According to the complainant, the proposal form for second policy is not signed by him and his signature on second proposal form is forged.  Admittedly, premium of Rs.12,500/- for first policy was payable on every February and August. The premium of Rs.12,506.43/- for second policy was payable in every November, February, May and August.  The complainant has produced copy of his bank account statement.  On perusal of it, there is payment of Rs.12,506.43/- through E.C.S. dated 22^nd November, 2010. As stated above, premium of Rs.12,500/- for first policy was payable only in February and August. On this background, the question arise why the complainant paid Rs.12,506.43/- through E.C.S. to the opponent on 22^nd November, 2010.  This payment corroborates the contention of the opponent about the second policy of which premium was Rs.12,506.43/- payable by E.C.S. in November. The documents produced by the complainant himself falsify the contention of the complainant that he had not purchased the second policy.  If, he had not purchased the second policy then there was no question of payment of Rs.12,506.43/- to the opponent through E.C.S in November. Thus, the evidence on record show that the complainant had purchased two policies but he failed to pay the premium regularly therefore both the policies were lapsed.

7)                The learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that once the policy is lapsed and terminated, the O.P. can not be directed to refund the premium amount paid by the customer.  For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in III (2005) CPJ 31 (SC).  In view of this judgment, once the policy is lapsed and terminated for non payment of premium, Insurance Company can not be directed to refund the premium. The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that the opponent has not produced expert opinion to show that the proposal form is signed by the complainant. As discussed above, the complainant himself has produced bank statement showing the payment of premium of Rs.12,506.43/- through E.C.S. in November. It corroborates the contention of the opponent about the purchase of second policy. Therefore, even if, there is no expert opinion in respect of the signature of the complainant on second proposal form still the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

 Pronounced on 12^th June, 2017