This revision petition has been filed against the order of HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.37 of 2011. The State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum, Solan, which had allowed the complaint of the present petitioner and directed the OP/ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co, to pay the difference between the amount already paid to the Complainant and the total sum of the insurance premia paid by him during the three year operation of the policy before surrender.
2. The case of the Complainant before District Forum was that during the period of operation of the policy he had paid a total premium of Rs.1,43,000/- . If the policy had run its entire tenure, the total of amounts paid by him would have been refunded on maturity with interest. He had exercised the permissible option of surrendering the policy on 30.3.2009, after it had been in operation for three years. He should therefore, have been paid the sum of Rs.1,43,000/- paid by him as premia, together with interest of 12%. But he was actually paid only Rs.1,01,846.67/-. This was alleged to be a deficiency on the part of the OP.
3. Per contra, the stand of the OP/present respondent was that as per clause 3.2 of the policy, withdrawal benefit under the policy was allowed only if all premia had been paid for full three years and the policy had been in force for the entire duration. In terms of the same clause 3.2, the withdrawal benefit would be the unit value as of the valuation date following the receipt of withdrawal request. The written response before the District Forum filed by the OP also explained the ‘unit values’ to be:-
“Market/fair value of the investment plus current assets less current liabilities and provisions divided by number of units outstanding under the relevant plan.”
The written response also gave the computation which showed how the amount of Rs.101846.67 was arrived at. 4. We have perused the records and heard Mr. Ankur Jaitly, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner. It is evident from the revision petition that the case of the petitioner gets support from the observation of the District Forum that—
“Therefore, the act of the OPs, in refunding an amount, if any, below the total of the premiums received by it from him, without any justifiable cause or reason, would certainly constitute a deficiency in service, as also an unfair trade practice, hence cannot exculpate their liability to refund the balance sum.”
5. The above observation of the District Forum was based on absence of the formula for computation of the ‘unit value’ required to work out the withdrawal benefit, in clause 3.2 of the policy. This has been examined by the State Commission in the impugned order. In this context, the State Commission has noted that method of computation is clearly explained in para 5 of the Written Response of the OP/insurance company. The complainant did not challenge the computation methodology before the District Forum. We have perused the Written Response and find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission.
6. Clearly, the real issue is not the method of computation of refund but whether non-refund of full premia paid by the complainant amounts to a deficiency of service. It is not the case of the complainant that there was any stipulation/ undertaking to this effect in the policy document. His case, as seen from the revision petition, is that non-refund of full premia, with interest, would be against natural justice. Neither the petition nor the counsel for the petitioner have explained how is it a requirement of natural justice. It is not denied that during the currency of the policy, the insured has enjoyed the protection of the insurance cover for three years from 2006 to 2009. Had he died during this period, the insurer/OP would have had to pay the full assured sum to the nominee under the policy or the legal heir of the insured. Such protection will have a cost which must be borne by the insured. Secondly, as pointed out in the Written Response of the OP before the District Forum, if the insured/complainant was not satisfied, he had the option to return the policy within 15 days of receipt, within “the Free-look Period”. We therefore, fully agree with the State Commission, when it says—
“It is true that the unit value worked out by the appellant and credited into the account of the respondent is less than the aggregated amount of three annual instalments of premium paid by him, but that does not mean any deficiency in service, on the part of the appellant. It is quite well known that when life insurance policies are surrendered, pre-mature, and withdrawals are applied for, the money which is paid on account of surrender value is normally less than the aggregated amount paid towards periodical premium. In this case, the policy was to remain in force for 15 years. Respondent sought the withdrawal, only after paying the premium for three years.”
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed and the order of the HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 37/2011 is confirmed. No orders as to costs. |
