1. The fact of the case of complainant is that she had availed two number of insurance policies from O.Ps vide no. 0050226192 DOC 01.05.2007 for term of 15 years with premium of Rs. 10,000/- and another vide proposal no. 0078794276 for Rs. 25,000/-.  It is alleged that she had received the policy bond against the 1^st insurance policy but did not receive the policy bond against the 2^nd insurance policy except the money receipt.  It is also alleged that she was out of her home place for about 6 to 7 years and since 2014 several times she contacted with the O.Ps but all efforts got in vein.  It is also alleged that on 07.08.2019 the O.Ps have credited an amount of Rs. 12,952/- into her AXIS bank account and on asking to the O.Ps, they could not ascertained about the credit of such amount in her account, thus with other allegations, she filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund Rs. 25,000/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation, conveyance and costs of litigation.

2. O.Ps appeared and filed their written statement challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the case as the cause of action arose under the territorial jurisdiction of Dist. Commission, Koraput.  Further admitting the issue of 1^st insurance policy vide no. 0050226192 for yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- for 15 years term, have denied the other allegations contending that the 2^nd insurance policy for Rs. 25,000/- was not issued at all and the same was rejected at proposal stage and the amount was refunded into the account of complainant on 22.02.2008.  It is contended that since the 1^st insurance policy was forclosed, they have credited the amount of Rs. 12,952/- into the account of complainant on 06.08.2019.  Further contended that complainant had failed to exercise her Free Look Period option, if not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said insurance policy and with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.  
    
3. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their case.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.  During hearing, only complainant is present.  O.Ps are absent on calls.  As such heard from her and decided the case on the basis of material documents available. 
    
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had opted for two number of life insurance policies vide no. vide no. 0050226192 DOC 01.05.2007 for term of 15 years with premium of Rs. 10,000/- and another vide proposal no. 0078794276 for Rs. 25,000/-.  It is also documentary fact that the O.Ps have not issued the 2^nd insurance policy against the proposal form vide no. 007879246 for Rs. 25,00/- and the said amount was refunded to the complainant on dated 22.02.2008 through NEFT.  Complainant has not raised any objection to that effect.  As such we think, the entire premium of Rs. 25,000/- being received by O.Ps against the 2^nd insurance policy was fully returned to the complainant. 
    
5. Now coming to the 1^st insurance policy, it is ascertained from the documents available that complainant had obtained the insurance policy vide no. 0050226192 for yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- on 01.05.2007 for 15 years term period and in total she deposited Rs. 30,000/- for 3 consecutive policy years, which is also not disputed by the O.Ps.  The allegation of complainant is that without any information and intimation, the O.Ps have credited an amount of Rs. 12,952/- into her account which also could not clarified by the concerned staffs of the O.Ps at their Jeypore Branch.  Whereas the O.Ps have contended that due to forclosure of the said policy, as per norms of insurance policy conditions, they have credited the said amount.  In this connection, complainant submitted that no notice or intimation for revival to continue the said policy was issued by the O.Ps.  And the said version is never been challenged by the O.Ps.  Though the O.Ps have filed one document dated 11.05.2012 subjecting that continuity option,  but have miserably failed to prove that the said document was properly and validly delivered / served to or being received by the complainant.Though the O.Ps have availed ample opportunities to submit the evidence towards delivery of the above letter to the complainant, but could not produce.Hence we think, the O.Ps have not delivered or dispatched the letter dated 11.05.2012 to the complainant but only produced the same before the Commission or else complainant could have revived the above policy within revival period.

6. Further it is seen that on many occasions, the revival letter of the insurance companies are not properly delivering to the policy holders in time.  Hence, it is the duty of the concerned O.Ps and their agent to collect the further premiums in due time from the policy holder, but without rendering their services, they intend to push the burden on the policy holders.  In this connection, we would like to make it clear that Insurance companies have different requirements about how a policy can be delivered.  For example a policy bond or revival letter may be delivered personally or by registered mail or by courier.  If the policy is delivered personally, then the insurance company specifies that the agent must do so within a certain number of days after the date the policy is issued.  But in the instant case, the O.Ps should have opted for delivering the alleged revival letter either though registered mail or by courier but without following the above procedure, the O.Ps only contended that they have delivered the letter dated 11.05.2012 and without any cogent evidence, such  plea of O.Ps will not do from any angle.

7. Further O.Ps have raised the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the case.  In this connection, we would like to make it clear that O.Ps being the insurance service provider, they run their insurance business throughout the country to obtain insurance policies from the general public and the insurance companies are very anxious to obtain insurance policy wherever they get any opportunity.Hence we do not think that always territorial jurisdiction is a bar in case of insurance service provider. Further we do not feel that insurance condition relates to a result of negotiated contract between the parties and during obtaining the alleged insurance policy and the O.Ps have explained the condition relating to the territorial jurisdiction of insurance policy.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Bhandari Interstate Carriers and another Vrs M/s A.K. Synthetics, wherein it is held that “Jurisdiction – Condition stipulated on the goods receipt that “all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction” – Whether State Commission, Rajasthan had jurisdiction had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?  State Commission held that there was no proof that the condition relating jurisdiction was the result of a negotiated contract.  The complainant had not agreed with that condition.  It was further found that the condition that “all disputes subject to Delhi Jurisdiction” did not exclude the jurisdiction of the State Commission which otherwise it had under the law as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State Commission – analysis of State Commission upheld.”Hence considering the above observation, we feel that this Commission is having ample jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute and also maintainable under this Forum.  

8. Considering the above discussions, we feel the O.Ps have their own fault towards not providing better services to the complainant and the complainant being a genuine customer, she deserves the best services from the O.Ps since the day of inception of the alleged policy till it’s maturity and not providing the best services, the O.Ps have proved deficiency in services on their part.   
    
9. Further it is seen that on many instances that only due to the improper services of the agents, the insurance companies are suffering heavily on socially and financially which is not supposed to happen.  Also it is seen that only to gain higher commissions, generally agents follow wrong procedure to motivate the customers by forgetting their duties to provide proper services.  And in the instant case also the same is happened.  Further the settled law is for any fault or act of agent, the company is solely liable to compensate the complainant for her sufferings and loss and for such act of agent, complainant has been compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such she is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering her suffering, we feel Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                   ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.Ps are herewith directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 17,048/- (Rs. 30,000/- - Rs. 12,952/-) to the complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- towards causing mental agony and improper service and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing, the balance amount of Rs. 17,048/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from 01.05.2010 till payment.

  Pronounced in the open Court on this the 1^st day of July, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.