PER HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘The Act’) assails the order dated 08.05.2019 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, ‘State Commission) in First Appeal No. 437 of 2018 arising out of the order dated 06.04.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata (in short, ‘District Forum’) in C.C. No. 512 of 2014. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner / complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’), are that he obtained a Unit Linked Pension Policy under Life Time Pension II Policy No. 02261671 (in short, the ‘Policy’) from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. , the opposite party/ respondent, and paid the first annual premium of Rs.45,000/-. It is averred that the opposite party withdrew the said policy from the market as per Circular guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) dated 21.12.2005 which was intimated to the petitioner by the insurance agent before the due date for the second premium that was due on 31.12.2006. It is stated that although the opposite party withdrew this policy from the market on 01.07.2006, it did not intimate the petitioner. In December, 2008 the petitioner had received a Unit Statement from the respondent. When the petitioner sought a refund of his policy vide letter dated 28.08.2009, the opposite party conveyed the Unit Statement for the period 01.12.2008 to 31.12.2009. Thereafter, on 12.03.2014 the Senior Manager of the opposite party informed the petitioner about the foreclosure of the policy w.e.f. 02.01.2012 and enclosed a cheque for Rs.14,321/- dated 08.03.2014 as foreclosure amount based on the then prevailing Net Asset Value (NAV). Following some correspondence with the opposite party, the petitioner filed C.C. No.512 of 2014 before the District Forum, Kolkata which was dismissed on 06.04.2018 on the ground that there was no deficiency in service since the opposite party/ respondent had calculated the “surrender value” as per the conditions of the policy. The petitioner then approached the State Commission in appeal against this order, which was partly allowed and in addition to the foreclosure amount, granted compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner. This order is impugned before us with the prayer that the opposite party/ respondent should refund the amount as per the NAV as on 12.03.2014, Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 3. The respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the insurance policy was a contract the terms of which cannot be altered subsequently or interpreted beyond the terms agreed upon. It is contended that the averment of the petitioner that he had been informed by the insurance agent and not by the respondent about the change in the policy conditions is not a valid agreement as it had done so vide an SMS dated 19.09.2011. It is contended that the policy was not renewed by the petitioner for over 5 years and therefore, as per clause 11 of the policy it was terminated on 02.01.2013. As the petitioner did not encash the cheque of Rs.14321.44 sent on 02.01.2012, it was resent on 09.03.2014 which was encashed on 25.03.2014. It is contended that only the first premium was paid and on account of non-payment of the second premium on 31.12.2009, the policy ceased as per clause 6.4 (6) read with clause 5 as per which benefits were payable either on death or surrender whichever was earlier. It was contended that the State Commission had rightly appreciated in the impugned order with the IRDA circular relied upon by the petitioner applied only to new policies and did not cover existing policies or cases of non-payment of premium on existing policies. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record. 5. The District Forum had arrived at the following findings while dismissing the consumer complaint: “Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was aware that the policy to be continued for 10 years and the premium of Rs.45,000/- is to be paid annually. The complainant has himself admitted that he failed to pay the premium. The complainant has claimed that at the time of determination of amount towards the value of the units at NAV should be paid by the o.p. After the determination of the amount the same was sent to the complainant. It appears from the policy document that the complainant failed to reinstate the policy within 5 years from the date of first unpaid premium and accordingly, the policy terminated due to failure to pay the premium as per clause 6.4(b) read with clause 5 of the policy. In case of surrender of policy the surrender value is equal to 25% value of units subject to the payment of premiums for first full policy year, 40% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for the two full policy years and 60% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for the three full policy years and 100% of the value of units subject to the payment of premiums for four full policy years. The value of units for the purpose of the surrender shall be computed by using the unit value on the valuation date immediately following the request of surrender. Accordingly, as per the above provision of the clauses of the policy 20% of the fund value was paid when the policy got terminated on 2nd January,2012 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of the said calculation the amount was paid to the complainant to the tune of Rs.14,321.44 and the same was duly accepted and encashed by the complainant on 25th March,2014. On perusal of the materials on record we hold that the insurance company did not make any illegality in determining the amount and the same was paid to the complainant thereby we hold that the claim made by the complainant is a fictitious one and accordingly, the prayer of the complainant could not be entertained. ” 6. The State Commission in turn had arrived at the findings that: We are of the considered view that the District Forum did not make any material irregularity in assessing the merit of the case and affirming the action taken by the Respondents/OPs for refund of the amount of Rs. 14,321.44. We, however, refused to accept the delayed payment of the refundable amount when the surrender of the policy was admittedly communicated to the Respondents/OPs long before by the Appellant/Complainant. We found deficiency on the part of the Respondents/OPs from that angle. Such being our observation, we are of the considered view that Appellant/Complainant should be paid a reasonable amount of cost and compensation by the Respondents/OPs. Hence, ORDERED that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part with costs. The Respondents/OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant for the delayed refund they made to him. They are further directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant. Entire amount has to be paid within 45 days from the date of the instant order, failing which, simple interest @9% p.a. shall accrue to the compensation amount of Rs. 3,000/- only from the date of default till the entire amount is fully realized.” 7. Petitioner argued as per the revision petition and averred that the respondent sold the policy to him in violation of IRDA’s Circular no. 032/IRDA/SCT 1/Dec – 2005 dated 31.12.2005. While the District Forum did not allow his complaint he relies upon the order dated 08.05.2019 which allowed his appeal. He has argued that the respondent admittedly informed in December 2008 that the final value of his policy at the relevant point of time was Rs.57,859.32. Therefore the foreclosure value on 12.03.2014 was wrongly calculated as Rs.14321.44. According to the petitioner the impugned order was erroneous as it was based upon clause 6.4 (b) and 5 of the policy whereas the policy according to him was ‘redundant’ as on 31.12.2005 in view of IRDA’s circular dated 31.12.2005. Hence, he claims to be entitled to reap the value of the money invested by him which is linked to the Sensex as on date. Accordingly, 10% cumulative interest since 2008, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.60,000/- towards litigation cost is claimed. 8. Respondent relied upon the circular of IRDA dated 21.12.2005 and stated that this did not apply to existing policies which was rightly appreciated by the State Commission. Therefore, as per clause 6.4 (b) reach with clause 5 of the policy, the same was treated as lapsed on account of non-payment of the second premium onwards and the petitioner’s entitlement was only to surrender value which was 25% of the fund value. On 28.08.2009, the petitioner had reported for refund of money and had encashed the cheque for Rs.14,321.44 in full and final settlement. Respondent relied upon para 11 of the order of this Commission in HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., vs Debashish Sanyal - RP No. 740 of 2018 decided on 09.01.2020. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., vs Garg Sons International – [2013 (1) SCALE 410”- held that “while construing the terms of the contract of insurance, the Court must give paramount importance to the terms used in the said contract”. He has also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., [ (2010) 10 SCC 567] that “the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and must be interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or exclusion”. 9. Respondent relied upon this Commission’s orders in Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs Life Insurance Corporation of India – RP no.634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013, wherein it has been held that ‘the insurance agent is a facilitator between the Insurance Co. and the prospective policy purchaser. He is an agent of consumer as well as Insurance Co. He is not exclusive agent of Insurance Co. Moreover, he cannot bind the Insurance Co., if he gives quotation of any policy at lesser monthly or yearly premium than prescribed by the underwriting insurance co.” 10. Respondent contended that as the petitioner had accepted the ‘surrender value’ to foreclose the policy, as per this Commission’s order in Japji Kaur Cheema vs ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., - RP No. 2795 of 2012 decided on 05.11.2012, wherein it was held that “payment of surrender amount as per agreed terms and conditions cannot be termed as deficiency in service and terms incorporated in the policy are agreement between the parties for intents and purposes and the parties are bound by them, thus once agreement is entered, none of the parties can go behind the terms of such agreement or allege that the conditions were not fair”, the petitioner’s contention was not justifiable. He also relied upon this Commission’s order in Harish Kumar Chadha vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. – RP No. 3271 of 2013 decided on 07.10.2013 that “no benefits including surrender value is payable beyond the agreed policy terms and conditions.” 11. The crux of the petitioner’s argument is that the IRDA Circular dated 21.12.2005 had directed discontinuation of the said policy and that this decision had not been conveyed to him by the respondent. However, on being informed of the same by an insurance agent, he had not paid the subsequent premiums and his claim is, therefore, that the refund should be paid on the NAV of the amount paid as premium. The circular of the IRDA in question reads as below: “4. With a view to meeting the general and specific objectives for unit linked like insurance products, stated in paragraph 2 and 3 above, the authority stipulates the guidelines in paragraph 5. These will come into effect immediately and implemented as under: I. The existing products should be modified to fall in line with the above guidelines. While there is no restriction on sale of these products (during the transition period (not beyond 30.06.2006), insurers should take steps to modify them as early as possible in a phased manner, and file with the authority for information before use. As a special case, the products so filed can be used without waiting for 30 days period. The above procedure for such products call for modification of all relevant documents such as policy document, proposal form, sales literature, sales illustration and advertisement material and filing with the authority before use. This shall be subject to completion of an internal check (at the insurer’s end) to satisfy that the products and related documents conform to the guidelines and certification by the CEO and the Appointed Actuary. The authority would carry out a check of the compliance at the later date and violations, if any observed, will invite serious action. The insurers are accordingly advised to carry out the requisite modification of the existing products, and complete the exercise latest by 30.06.2006. The existing products which are not modified shall not be sold after 30.06.2006. II. All the products filed but not yet cleared by the authority shall be required to be filed afresh after modifying to conform to the guidelines.” 12. A plain reading of this circular indicates that it only sets out guidelines to provide a fair insurance coverage and disclosure to facilitate an informed decision by the policy holder as to the investment risk and the guiding factors in the policy which is linked to investment. However, the policy had not been discontinued as interpreted / understood by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s case that he discontinued the payment of the premium on account of deficiency in service by the respondent is not sustainable. 13. It is also evident that the petitioner has sought the repayment of his insurance policy which is governed by the terms and conditions of that policy as per catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission. Surrender value as per clause 5 of the said policy would amount only to 25% of the NAV as on the date of refund. The respondent cannot be faulted for having followed the conditions of the policy which is a contract between the petitioner and the respondent and binds them to the terms of that contract. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner cannot treat the insurance policy as an investment which is linked to the Sensex and seek refund on the basis of NAV since the contract of insurance is bound by the terms which may be related to the fluctuations of the Sensex but cannot be considered to be a deposit to reap the gains of investment. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the State Commission which is a considered order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
