Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that on the allurement and believing the officials of the Opposite Parties to opt for ING Aashirvad Policy with good returns except deduction in nominal charges even in case of surrender of policy after 3 days, the complainant deposited Rs.47,914.66 paisa annual premium and purchased policy baring No. 02440393 with the Opposite Parties on 28.03.2021 with maturity till 28.03.2027 with guaranteed maturity benefit of Rs.10,20,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant deposited four regular premiums with the Opposite Parties and thereafter, the complainant was unable to deposit the same and he decided to surrender the policy and intimation in this regard was given on 18.07.2016 with the Opposite Parties. The complainant has deposited Rs.1,91,656/- in four yearly premium, but the Opposite Parties issued the letter dated 05.08.2016 for surrender value of policy of Rs.88,656/- and lateron transferred the amount of Rs.88.929.04 paisa through NEFT in the account of the complainant. The complainant was shocking to receive the letter dated 05.08.2016 and attitude on surrender of the policy and the Opposite Parties can deduct the nominal charges in surrender of the policy if any and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,02,727/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1 lakh besides rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that as per the proposal form dated 29.03.2012, the complainant opted for life insurance product named “ING Aashirvad” and with annual premium of Rs.47,914.66 paisa for a paying terms of 15 years for a sum assured of Rs.10,20,000/- and the policy bearing No.02440395 was issued alongwith covering letter dated 31.03.2012 and as per the Regulation 6(2) of (Protection of Policyholder’s Interest) Regulation 2002 issued by the IRDAI, the policyholder/ proposer is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/ objection within 15 days of receipt of policy bond (Free Look Period). Said facts were clearly intimated in the welcome letter which was issued to the complainant alongwith the policy schedule and terms and conditions. However, the complainant had never approached the Opposite Parties within free look period and it is presumed that the complainant is duly satisfied with the policy terms and conditions. Further as per the request of the complainant, after duly processing the Surrender Request, the Opposite Parties informed the complainant vide letter dated 05.08.2016 that the surrender value of the policy as on 5.8.2016 is Rs.88,856/- and same was transferred through NEFT on 26.10.2016 which is also admitted by the complainant and hence, the claim of the complainant is arbitrary, unreasonable and is an abuse of the process of law and the complainant is legally not entitled to pray for more surrender value beyond the scope of contract i.e. Policy Terms and Conditions. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.RW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement and we have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not denial of the parties that as per the proposal form dated 29.03.2012, the complainant opted for life insurance product named “ING Aashirvad” and with annual premium of Rs.47,914.66 paisa for a paying terms of 15 years for a sum assured of Rs.10,20,000/- and the policy bearing No.02440395 was issued alongwith covering letter dated 31.03.2012, copies of the policy documents alongwith terms and conditions are placed on record Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Alongwith Ex.R3, there is Welcome letter issued by the Opposite Parties to the complainant in which it is clearly mentioned to the following affect:-
“We encourage you to go through the detailed terms and conditions of your policy. Should you to desire, you have the option of cancelling the policy by writing to the company stating the reasons for disagreeing with any of the terms or conditions of the policy and by returning the original policy document to the company, with 15 days of the date of receipt of the policy. In such a case, the company shall refund the premium received from you for this policy (after deducting the proportionate risk premium for the period of risk cover and expenses incurred by the company on account of medical examination and on stamp duty charges). It shall be presumed that the policy holder in the ordinary course has received the policy within 3 days of mailing.”
This Welcome letter has duly been sent to the complainant alongwith policy documents which were admittedly received by the complainant. Moreover, in case the policyholder was not satisfied with the features of the terms and conditions of the policy he could review/ withdraw/ return/ alter the details of the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision, as per Clause 17 mentioned in the Policy documents, but the complainant has nowhere chosen to get cancel the policy document. Not only this, the complainant has also not denied the receipt of the policy sent by the Opposite Parties to him. Hence, the complainant was given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, and this version has nowhere denied by the Complainant by filing any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant never accepted such terms and conditions of the Opposite Party while purchase the policies in question. In this regard, we find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:-
“22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..”
“24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”
The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Same view has also been expressed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.485 of 2019 in case Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Versus Atma Singh, decided recently on 11.11.2021.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
