JUDGEMENT

          One Dilip Kumar Mukherjee a Sr. Citizen by filing this complaint has alleged that he purchased one policy for 10 years term subject to his final maturity in the month of November, 2018 subject to pyment of yearly premium of Rs.1,50,000/- and its guaranteed maturity value is Rs.12,79,953/-.  But he paid two premiums of Rs.1,50,000/- in the month of November,2008 and November, 2009.  But subsequently after getting the statement in the month of September, 2009 he was completely perplexed and due to distress he decided to continue for 3 years otherwise policy would lapse.  So, he wanted to reduce stake in November,2010 and policy was rectified and he was directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as premium in November,2010 and he paid it.  But considering reduced premium of Rs.40,000/- for next 8 years, the guaranteed value was shown Rs.4,74,146/-(sum assured) + 73,554/- (bonus) i.e. total Rs.5,47,700/-.  After considering that statement complainant was astonished that on payment of Rs.6,20,000/- he shall have to get Rs.5,47,700/-.  So, complainant lost confidence, but in the meantime complainant already paid Rs.3,40,000/-.  But op Insurance Co. supplied surrender value slip on 20.12.2011 for Rs.2,21,797/- and subsequently on 25.04.2012 surrender value shown as given by the insurer is Rs.78,794/- and considering that complainant was disgusted and found that it is the op Insurance Co’s Arbitrary Rule and no person shall have to believe that on payment of Rs.3,40,000/-, as surrender value, he shall have to get Rs.78,974/-  and so practically complainant liked to discontinue the policy.  But he wants to get back the deposited amount of premium of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest and also compensation for harassing him by the op.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted rather admitted that complainant applied for savings assurance plan of yearly premium of Rs.1,50,000/- and on the basis of written application they issued a policy being No. 12333675 issued in favour of the complainant and admittedly complainant paid 2 premiums in the year 2008 – 09 at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Subsequently he applied for reduction of premium to the extent of Rs.40,000/- and his request was accepted and he paid premium for the third year i.e. Rs.40,000/- and thereafter he failed and neglected to pay the premium further from the next period and as because the complainant paid premium for 3 years and failed to pay subsequent premiums, the policy went to a paid up status.

          Thereafter op received an e-mail from the complainant that was replied by its e-mail dated 25.10.2012 and informed that as because he failed to take recourse as per policy condition within 15 days from the receipt of original policy document i.e. free look period and did not apply for cancellation for the said policy within free look period, the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit and further op submitted that after reduction of premium to the extent of Rs.40,000/- per year the total guarantee value of the policy reduced to Rs.5,47,000/- which is included assured sum of Rs.4,74,146/- and revisionary bonus of Rs.73,554/- up to March,2011 and if the policy had been continued for the remaining term, the revisionary bonus would have increased.

          Further it is submitted that two quotations of surrender value were generated at two different times on the request of the complainant but the said quotations differed due to charges attached to the policy and as because the policy attended paid up status and the sum assured stood at Rs.1,42,244/- as per the IRDA approved policy terms and conditions and for which it was reported what amount he shall have to get as surrender value.  But further he submitted that all allegations are false and fabricated and complainant is not entitled to get any benefit.

                                       Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of complaint and written version including the documents and surrender value slip of Rs.78,974/- and considering this fact it is proved that against Rs.3,40,000/- (as paid up premium) complainant shall have to get surrender value of Rs.78,974/- as on 25.04.2012.  Can it be a theorization of any private insurance company to eat the flesh of the consumer (depositor) in such a fashion.  Can it be a policy of any insurance company, because in case of LICI if a policy is not continued, the total paid up premium amount is paid without any bonus.  After deduction of service charge to the extent of Rs. 10% and giving bank interest @ 6% p.a.  Sometimes entire amount is paid and the policy is treated as closed finally.

          Most interesting factor is that along with policy no policy conditions and privileges with refer to policy is followed by Rules and Regulations of the Insurance Policy as already adopted by the Ministry of Finance Revenue Insurance by that op but LICI, Insurance company follows that and as per that condition and privileges of the policies it is proved that LICI and other Government Insurance Companies return the entire deposited premiums without any further benefit of bonus but with bank interest if the policy is not continued after 3 years.

          But in this particular case it is proved that the HDFC Standard Pvt Insurance Co. after receiving Rs.3,40,000/- premium wants to refund or return the surrender value of Rs.78,974/- as on 25.04.2012.  But fact is that insurance company has adopted dragonian rules and fact remains that it cannot be a insurance policy theorization or business of any company of India.  In this context we want to mention in this regard that insurance company has no legal authority to eat the flesh of the consumer in such a manner and in this case HDFC Standard Life practically has not stated in the written version how and what manner the total value of premium i.e. Rs.3,40,000/- was reduced to a surrender value of Rs.78,974/- and no doubt this op insurance company has nothing but a company who has acquired their capital by eating flesh of poor public and in this case a retired fellow opened that policy but ultimately his hopes are nipped in the bud consequently.  Can a prudent man believe that by depositing Rs.15 lakhs one shall have to get sum assured with bonus of Rs.12,79,953/-.  In this regard we have consulted some policies of insurance companies (LICI) wherefrom we have gathered that LICI return in all cases deposited premium maturity without any profits but with bank interest since the day of last deposit.  But this HDFC Standrad Life Pvt. Insurance Co. has eaten up entire capital out of Rs.3,40,000/- and wants to return Rs.78,974/- i.e. completely treated as illegal arbitrary and uncalled for.  In this context we want to say some vital aspects because HDFC Standard Pvt. Ins. Co., ICICI and some other private insurance companies are practically collecting money from poorer section of people through their agent who are dragons who are alluring the people at large to purchase insurance policy of the private insurance companies but ultimately in most of the cases poorer section of the people are being cheated by such private insurance companies like this op and no doubt this present complainant as a senior citizen after retirement for benefit purchased the insurance policy, it was found that the entire deposited amount has been eaten up by the ops and no doubt he shall have to get total of Rs.78,974/- only without getting any bonus and in the circumstances, we find that op has adopted unfair trade practice in this regard in dealing with the insurance business but such a business would be stopped and it is not the theorization to grab the entire deposited amount of the insurer if the insurer is unable to continue it for some reason in future for the benefit of the insurance companies.

          In the light above of observation we are convinced to hold that no doubt the complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,40,000/- from the op insurance company drawing this policy is closed finally and also interest at bank rate of 6% p.a. over the said amount with compound interest and in this regard it is proved that the complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- on two occasion in the year 2008 – 09 and Rs.40,000/- in the year 2010.  So, against that Rs.3,40,000/- we have assessed the 6% interest in composit terms i.e. Rs.30,000/- because no doubt the op already got all benefits and profits out of that amount by investing that amount for which op is not entitled to deduct any amount of the deposited premiums and in all respects the op’s such sort of business is unfair and such a business should be stopped and no doubt the senior citizen has been deceived by the op in all respect.

          In the result, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.3,40,000/- premium already deposited since 2008 and also cpmposit interest what we have assessed Rs.30,000/- and further for harassing the complainant, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- from the op.  So, op is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.

 Accordingly the complaint succeeds.

        Hence, it is

                                                      ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the op.

Op is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as per spirit of the body of the order within 15 days from the date of this order to the complainant without any fail, failing which over the said amount the op shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.500/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

For adopting unfair trade practice, op shall have to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penal damages so that in future op shall have to adopt a fair business in dealing with the business policy with the public at large and said amount shall be deposited within 15 days from the date of this order.  Op is directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of this order by clearing the declared amount failing which for each day’s delay a penalty of Rs.200/- shall be assessed for it and it shall be deposited to State Consumer Welfare Fund along with amount of Rs.10,000/- as imposed for adopting unfair trade practice.

Even if it is found that the op is reluctant to comply the order, in that case penal measure shall be taken against the op’s authority by starting the proceedings u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 and for which warrant of arrest may be issued against them for implementation of the order.