KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 and 17 under the  Consumer Protection Act,1986, preferred against the final order of the judgement dated 14/09/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj in CC/20/2020.

The Appellant’s case in brief is that the Appellant being a bona fide consumer of the Respondent nos. 1 & 2, having purchased a single premium, Life Link Super Plan (U 37) being No.04124788, starting from 20/12/2006  till 20/12/2038, for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, having death benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only, through Respondent No.3, after paying Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, vide Cheque/DD no.037055, against Application No.95056377, on 13/11/2006, after which the Policy had been supplied by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Due to financial crisis, the Appellant intended to surrender the above Policy and issued a letter dated 22/02/2018 to the Respondent No.1, to know the procedure of surrender details. After receipt of the letter in the month of April 2018, the Respondent No.1, issued a letter advising him to file fresh application before the Respondent No.2. As per the advice, the Appellant submitted another application dated 03/04/2018 to the Respondent No.2, which was acknowledged by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Despite, visiting the offices of the Respondents, no step or action had been taken intentionally, with an ill-motive to deprive the Appellant, refused to accede to the request of the Appellant, vide letter dated 07/01/2020. The Respondents thereby not only committed deficiency in service, but also committed unfair trade practices. Finding no alternative, the Appellant lodged a complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj, with necessary prayers.

The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, appeared to contest the claim by filing written version, wherein they had stated that the Life Link Super Plan (U 37) was a unit link Insurance Plan wherein the amount paid was invested in equity debt cash and in related markets and therefore the investment was a speculative investment for gain and therefore the investors could not be termed consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also mentioned that the Hon’ble NCDRC had supported the above contention in Ram Lal Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and also, the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162/2010, in Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it was decided that the speculative investments would not be attracted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that no surrender request form, had been submitted by the Appellant, despite the advice. It was also mentioned that there was no deficiency in service and was supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s test of deficiency in service, in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. K L M Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66. It was further submitted that the Insurance Company, having covered the risk on the life of the Appellant, would have been liable to pay the death claim on the unfortunate event of the death of the Appellant, based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC in LICI & Ors. Vs. Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors. IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC) and LIC Vs. Kalluri Siddaiah (FA No.718/2019) dated 30/11/2020. It was further prayed that the consumer case be dismissed.

The Respondent No.3 also, had appeared and filed a written version wherein it was admitted that the Appellant had purchased the Life Link Super Plan (U 37) for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only and denied the other claims.

After going through the evidence on record, the Ld. DCDRF had dismissed the complaint on contest against the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and ex-parte against the Respondent No.3.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order the instant appeal was preferred on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                            Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing, had submitted that as per Clause 2.2 of the Policy, it was clearly mentioned that the Appellant could surrender the Policy, after the expiry of the three policy years. Therefore, the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur’s failure to consider the same, had rendered the impugned order, illegal. He therefore prayed for allowing the appeal and the complaint and setting aside the impugned order.

None appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, following which the appeal was heard ex-parte.

From the materials on record including the impugned order, it transpires that the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, had opposed the Appellant’s case mainly on the ground of the Policy being Life Link Super Plan (U 37), being invested in equities, cash, etc., was an investment for speculative gain and therefore the dispute arising out of such policy, would not be a consumer dispute. But the fact is that, the Appellant had filed the case below for deficiency of service when despite acknowledging the surrender Clause 2.2 of the Policy, the Respondents 1 & 2 had failed to comply with the prayer of the Appellant. Therefore, it is a simple case of deficiency of service as prescribed in the provisions of section 2 (1) (g) & (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not a case challenging the nitty-gritties of the Life Link Super Plan (U 37) or the irregularities in the above Plan, nor any claim under the above Plan, had been challenged. It is therefore a straight forward case of deficiency of service due to non-refund of the surrender value, especially in the light of the existence of the surrender clause in Clause 2.2 of the Policy. Under the circumstance, barring a consumer case, merely because the above plan is linked with the equity markets, etc., would tantamount to depriving the consumer from availing the simplest and cheapest forum for redressal of his grievances. Hence, the citations relied by the Respondents do not come to their rescue, as the facts of the instant case do not match with those in the citations.

Secondly, the Respondents 1 & 2 had opposed the claim of the Appellant, on the ground that the surrender letter was not accompanied by the proper surrender request. In this regard, it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, as well as the IRDA Notifications, discouraging the tendencies of the Insurance Companies to be hyper technical while dealing with such prayers. Similarly, in the instant case also this ground of the Respondents 1 & 2, appears to be hyper technical in nature and therefore does not deserve to be considered.

Finally, the Respondents 1&2’s inability to consider the Appellant’s prayer for refund of the premium in addition to the units earned, needs to be considered in the backdrop of the provisions enumerated in the surrender Clause 2.2 of the Policy. Hence, in view of the above findings, the citations relied on behalf of the Resondents 1&2, do not appear to be of much help.

Under the circumstance, when the factum of the execution of the Policy and its subsequent surrender, is not in dispute. The Appellant’s surrender of the Life Link Super Plan (U 37), should be considered as per the provisions mentioned in Clause 2.2 of the Policy and refund the same to the Appellant along with compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

                                                     It is therefore,

                                                      ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte, against the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against Respondent No.1, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, are directed to comply with the directions mentioned in the body of the order, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 9% would be levied on the above amount till the date of payment.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.