JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs (now appellants) to revive the insurance policy on receipt of the balance amount (Rs.10,000/- minus Rs.6610.97 i.e. Rs.3389/-) and to provide the life coverage to the complainant (now respondent) upto the age of 70 years, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Col.Abhay Rishi(Retd) took Life Time Insurance Policy No.00710159, by paying initial premium of Rs.75000/- commencing w.e.f. 17.02.2004. According to the complainant, he had to pay in total three installments of Rs.75000/- p.a. each and thereafter, no premium was required to be paid and his life was covered upto the age of 70 years. It was stated that in the eventuality of any mishap, the complainant was to be given insurance cover for Rs.8 lacs, but if he had made any withdrawals, from the policy, then to that extent, the cover was to come down proportionately. It was further stated that as per clause 3.2 of the terms and conditions of the Policy, the insured was allowed to make partial withdrawals of his deposited amount. The complainant made partial withdrawals on 16.04.07, 26.04.07 and 15.07.2008 as per clause 3.2 of the insurance policy. On 18.04.2009, the complainant requested the OPs for switching the funds. As per the statement of account issued on 18.04.2009, the complainant had a closing balance of 399 units, having the market value of Rs.60,000/-, despite withdrawals. It was further stated that the OPs were duty bound to send intimation/notice to him, to the effect, that the market value of his units, had decreased considerably due to the general recession and business losses. It was further stated that without any intimation, the policy taken by the complainant was illegally foreclosed by the OPs on 29.09.2009 ,and the same was not revived after his repeated visits and requests. A legal notice dated 06.11.2009 was sent to the OPs, but to no avail. Instead of reviving the insurance policy, in question, the OPs refunded Rs.6600/-. It was further stated that the complainant did not accept the said refund and sent back the cheque to the OPs vide covering letter dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure C-9). It was further stated that foreclosing of the policy, without any prior notice, to the complainant that his balance had decreased less than Rs.10,000/-, the OPs were deficient in rendering service. Accordingly, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only) claiming various reliefs was filed by the complainant. 3. In reply, the OPs admitted the issuance of the life term insurance policy commencing from 17.02.2004, in favour of the complainant. It was also admitted that, in pursuance of the requests made by the complainant for partial withdrawals, sums of Rs.36734.12 on 27.04.2007, Rs.50000/- on 13.06.2007, Rs.50000/- and Rs.72894.21 on 16.07.2008 totaling Rs.2,09,628.33 were paid back to the complainant. It was further stated that as per clause 7.3 of the policy, if the premiums were paid for 3 policy years, and thereafter no premium was paid, the policy remains continued till such time, as the unit value was sufficient to pay the applicable charges and to meet the said requirement. It was further stated that the policy get foreclosed when the fund value becomes less than Rs.10000/-. It was further stated that as the fund value of the complainant became less than Rs.10000/-, so in these circumstances, his policy was foreclosed on 29.09.2009 and, accordingly, cheque No.376204 for Rs.6616.97/- was sent to him on 2.11.2009. It was further stated that, as an exceptional case, the policy could be revived, on receipt of the balance premium amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the same, and on receipt of Rs.6616.97paise which were sent to the complainant, on account of foreclosure of the same ( policy). It was further stated that the OPs acted, in accordance with the terms, and conditions of the Policy and, as such, they could not be said to have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The remaining allegations were denied being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Opposite parties/Appellants. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that since the fund value of the complainant, became less than Rs.10,000/-, the policy taken by him from the OPs, automatically stood foreclosed. He further submitted that the OPs used to supply the statements of account to the complainant, from time to time, showing his fund value, but if he did not care to maintain the minimum fund value of Rs.10,000/-, the OPs could not act against the terms and conditions of the Policy. He further submitted that no prior notice, before foreclosing the policy, was required to be issued, to the complainant. He further submitted that since, a cheque in the sum of Rs. 6610.97paise was sent to the complainant, after foreclosing his policy, that amounted to issuance of due notice to him. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, thus, being illegal is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/complainant had paid three annual premiums of Rs.75,000/- each, for the sum assured to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, for covering his life upto the age of 70 years. He further submitted that after making payment of premium for three consecutive years @ Rs.75000/- per annum, he was not required to pay further premium, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy. He further submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the Policy, he made three withdrawals, referred to above. He further submitted that as per the statement of account issued on 18.4.2009, by the OPs to the complainant, he had the closing balance of 399 units having the market value of Rs.60,000/-, despite withdrawals. He further submitted that thereafter, no statement of account was sent by the OPs, to the complainant, and as such, it was not possible for him to know as to whether the fund value, had decreased less than Rs.10,000/- He further submitted that the OPs were required to, resort to the principles of natural justice, by issuing notice to the complainant that since his fund value had decreased less than Rs.10,000/-, he should maintain the minimum balance, otherwise, his policy would be foreclosed. He further submitted that no such prior notice was issued to the complainant, and as such, foreclosure of the policy was illegal, being violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undoubtedly, ICICI Prudential Life Time Insurance Policy No.00710159 for a sum of Rs.8 lacs, upto the age of 70 years, was obtained by the complainant, from the OPs. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that the complainant paid three premiums @ Rs.75,000/- per annum regularly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The factum that it was required to pay only three premiums finds corroboration from clause 3.2 of the insurance policy C-1. It is also evident from C-2, a document, nomenclatured as ‘benefit illustration on life time cover’ issued by the OPs that the complainant was only required to pay three premiums @ Rs.75,000/- per annum. It is evident from the statement of account that the fund value/closing balance of the complainant on 18.4.2009 was shown to be Rs. 19645.58paise and closing balance of the units was 399.544100. No doubt, according to Clause 7.3 of the terms and conditions of the Policy, if the balance remaining across all the plans is less than Rs.10,000/-, the policy shall be terminated and the unit value under the policy shall be paid. However, it may be stated here, that there is no material, on the record, to prove that, after 18.4.2009 any statement of account was sent to the complainant, intimating him from time to time his fund value. There is, no material, on the record, that any prior notice was sent to the complainant, before foreclosing his policy, on the ground that since his fund value had decreased less than Rs.10,000/- as per clause 7.3, the Company was going to foreclose the said policy. The OPs were required to, resort to the principles of natural justice, by giving a prior notice to the complainant, that since his fund value had decreased less than Rs.10,000/-, his policy shall be foreclosed, if he did not maintain the minimum balance. Had the complainant been given such prior notice, he would have certainly made endeavour to raise the fund value to Rs.10,000/- or more. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that foreclosure of the policy of the complainant, was violative of the principles of natural justice. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion that, as such, the OPs, were deficient in rendering service to the complainant and they also indulged into unfair trade practice. The conclusion arrived at, by the District Forum, on the aforesaid aspects, being based on due appreciation of evidence, on record, is endorsed. The order rendered by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference of the Commission. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. 11. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
