Heard learned counsel for the appellant physically.
2. None appears for the respondent.
3. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
4. The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainants being persuaded by the OP purchased two Century Plus insurance policy from the appellant insurance company bearing No.97128963 & 97131172 for a sum assured of Rs.4,99,500/- each in favour of complainant no.1 and his wife complainant no.2. The premium payable under each policy is i.e. Rs.99,900/- annually and the period of policy is for 10 years. The complainant and the wife deposited Rs.99,900/- as 1st instalment against their respective policy.It is further alleged that after four years of commencement of the policy the complainant and his wife wanted to withdraw the deposited amount.
5. The complainant alleged further that the OP sent the cheque of Rs.45,576/- and Rs.58,414/- instead of the sum assured as per term of policies on 30.05.2013 and 28.05.2013. respectively. The complainant and wife raised objection to such settlement of account and requested for payment of entire sum assured with bonus but the OP did not pay same. Finding no other way, the complaint was filed.
6. The OP filed written version by admitting that the complainant and the wife have purchased the policy under century plus plan. According to them the said policy after being surrendered, the amount of Rs.45,576/- and Rs.58,414/- as per unit linked plan under century plan were paid to the complainant no.1 and his wife respectively. As per the century plan the OP has not committed any deficiency of service by remitting such amount which is based on NAV.
7. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the impugned order in the following manner:-
Xxxx xxx xxx
“ Hence ordered that the above cases of the complainants are allowed in part and the Opp.Parties No.2 to 5 being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.99,900/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. from 28.04.2008 in case of complainant No.1 and pay Rs.99,900/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. in case of complainant No.2 from 26.05.2008 till termination of policies and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost in each case also to the complainants minus the for closure value in each case offered to the complainants within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not following the insurance plan which was purchased by the complainant and his wife. According to him since the century plus policy is unit linked plan, after surrender of policy, money as accrued to the complainant and his wife under said policy, was made available and accordingly the cheques have been issued to the complainant and his wife which they have accepted. Learned District Forum has not discussed such fact while disposing the matter. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
9. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
10. The policy in question under century plus plan is as follows:-
“ 1) We also wish to finrom you that as per the product specification there is no option of single premium in this policy.
2) After three years from the date of commencement you can make surrender of the policy, the surrender value will be dependent on unit prices.
3) We would like to inform you that the policy would be in force till the account value has sufficient amount to cover the cost of insurance. “
11. The aforesaid policy issued on 31.10.2008 shows that the complainant and his wife have purchased the century plus policy. It shows that the policy is not a single premium policy and the policy can not be surrendered within three years. It is clearly stated that the surrender value depends on unit price. In the instant case admittedly four years after commencement of the policy, the complainant’s wife surrendered the policy. When there is clear document to show that the surrender value made available according to the unit price, the OP has thoroughly followed the scheme and paid Rs.45,576/- to complainant no.1 and also Rs.58,414/- has also credited to the account to the complainant no.2- wife of the complainant on their NAV rate. The copes of the Banker’s cheque are available on record.
12. Since, the surrender value depends on unit price and the Ops have already calculated the amount accordingly and credited to account of complainants, this Commission is of the view that the said price being the unit price have been rightly paid. Learned District Forum has not gone through such fact and law. Hence, this Commission do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum .In the result, impugned order is set-aside.
Appeal stands allowed. No cost
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
