Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased two policies bearing Nos. 585188473 and 585902859 for Rs.10,000/- each. Such policies were purchased under New Jeevan Surakhya Plan with pension benefits. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant asked on 18.5.2007 to OP No.1 to allow him to surrender the above policies and to release the entire maturity value in cash because of his financial crunch. Then, the complainant surrendered the policies on 7.6.2007. Thereafter, the OPs asked to exercise the option for release of the maturity dues. Then the complainant sent a letter on 2.7.2007 stating that he is not interested to exercise any option for pension as he being urgent in need of money surrendered policy whose vale should be paid by OPs. Since the OPs did not release the surrender value under the policies, he filed the complaint.
4. OPs filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. They admitted about purchase of two policies by the complainant. It is further stated that the claim of the complainant to receive the surrender value of the policies before the maturity date is not permissible as per policy condition. So they intimated the complainant to exercise the option if he desires to receive 25% cash value of the policy in which cash balance 75% is to be utilized for payment of annuity. Since no option is received the annuity cheque of Rs.697/- and Rs.17/- respectively are payable. So, there is no any deficiency of service on their part.
5. After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Considering the above circumstances, we feel that the claim having not been settled as yet, the complainant be entitled to get the cash benefits along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date of payment after maturity till full recovery. Accordingly, the OPs are directed to make payment of the claim as would be due with interest as indicated above within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant may get it realized u/s 25 and 27 of C.P.Act and for that the OP be liable to bear the cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has erred in law not following the written version of the OPs. Had the District Forum gone through the materials, it would have passed order in favour of the complainant when the scheme was as such. According to him, for the purchase of two policies with pensionary benefit if the option is exercised then only the amount would have been payable otherwise computed amount will be only payable. When the matter of the complainant was not settled, the complainant filed the complaint without waiting for the settlement of the claim. So the learned District Forum has committed error by pre-judging the case. However, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased two policies from OP No.1. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has purchased those policies namely, ‘New Jeevan Surakhya’ Plan with pensionary benefits. It is also admitted fact that he has asked for premature release of the amount. It is also admitted fact that OPs have sent letter to exercise the option but the complainant has submitted that he would surrender the policies.
10. The complainant has proved the policies under ‘Jeevan Surakhya’ Plan with profit. Clause – 7 of the policy shows that the policy can be surrendered for cash at any time, after premiums have been paid for at least two years but before the date on which the annuity vests for an amount equal to 90% of all premiums paid, excluding the premiums for the first year and Term assurance premium and extra premium, if any. The policy cannot be surrendered after the date on which the annuity vests. Clause – 7 (ii) shows that the policy can be surrendered for cash at any time after the completion of two years from the date of issue but before the date on which the annuity vests, for an amount equal to 90% of the within mentioned single premium. Since there is already policy condition allowing the surrender of policy, the OPs should have adopted this provision when vide Ext.4 the complainant refused to exercise any option which was sent by the OPs vide Ext. 3 series and desired to surrender the policies. Therefore, in view of aforesaid provision and the fact that the complainant would surrender the policies, the silence on the part of the OPs by not complying the policy condition is deficiency of service.
11. The learned District Forum has actually applied the judicial mind to the facts of the case and passed the impugned order. There is nothing to interfere with it. However, the learned District Forum has passed order to pay back the claim value with 9% interest to which the learned counsel for the appellants objected because section 14 of the Act does not allow any interest payable on the amount which is not certain. Accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, the ordering portion of impugned order is modified to the extent that the entire surrender value of the policies be returned to the complaint or his legal heirs if the complainant is dead within 45 days failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.
