Justice V.K. Jain (ORAL) The complainant/petitioner purchased two policies from the respondent one for Rs.3,50,000/- and the other for Rs.35,000/-. In respect of the policy of Rs.3,50,000/-, the petitioner was required to pay the second installment of premium in March 2013. He however did not pay the said premium. In the second policy taken by the complainant/petitioner, he was required to pay Rs.35,000/- per year for 7 years. 2. The complainant/petitioner approached the District Forum with a complaint alleging therein that in March 2013 when he could not deposit the second installment of Rs.3,50,000/-, a person claiming to be the agent of the insurer took Rs.35,000/- from him and gave a personal code with an assurance/inducement to make the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- onetime payment and he was made to talk to a lady, who claimed to be an officer of IRDA and who assured him that on 29.05.2013 a sum of Rs.26,000/- will be transferred to his account. Further, when he visited the IRDA, he was told that there was no such person working with them. When he went to Branch Office of the insurer, he was told that the second installment of Rs.3,50,000/- was due with late fee of Rs.24,000/- and if he did not make the second installment with late fee, the entire amount shall be forfeited. The complainant sought direction to the insurer to reimburse the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.35,000/- to him. He also sought registration of a criminal case against Rakesh Kumar Dogra, who was the agent of the insurer who had sold the policy to him as well as against other persons who allegedly embezzled cash of Rs.26,000/-. 3. The complaint was resisted by the insurer. It was stated in the reply filed by the insurer that policy no.0252167532 was issued by them against receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-, whereas the second policy was issued against receipt of Rs.35,000/-. The complainant was required to pay one more installment of Rs.3,50,000/- against the first policy issued to him but since he did not pay the said installment, the policy had lapsed. As regards, the second policy it was stated that since no premium at all was paid by the complainant that policy had also lapsed. 4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to refund the aforesaid amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a., compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 09.09.2015 partly allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and directed that it will pay a sum of Rs.2,06,400/- that being the surrender value of the first policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. It was also held that nothing will be payable to the complainant against the second policy. However, the compensation awarded to the complainant was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, whereas the cost of litigation was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that since the policy no.0252167532 was received by the petitioner/complainant only in December 2012, he did not know that he would be required to pay the second installment within one year and that was the reason, the said payment could not be made. We however find that there is no such averment either in the complaint filed before the District forum or in any letter to the insurer. In fact, this was not at all the grievance of the petitioner before the District Forum that the insurance policy was not received by him in time or that he did not know that he was required to pay the second installment of Rs.3,50,000/- after one year. In his complaint to the District Forum, he clearly admitted the default on his part by stating that the second installment of Rs.3,50,000/- was not paid by him. Had the complainant/petitioner not received the policy document soon after making payment, the least he would have done was to write a letter to the insurer asking for the said policy document. In any case, he would have certainly stated so in his complaint to the District Forum. 7. Even if it is assumed that the policy document was received by the complainant/petitioner in December 2012 as is now stated by his counsel, he had enough time to make payment, on or before the due date for the second installment. He himself admitted in the complaint to the District Forum that when he visited the office of the insurer and met the Branch Manager Mr. Rahul Sharma, he was told that he could make the payment of second installment with late fee of Rs.24,000/-. Even at that time, the complainant/petitioner did not offer to pay the second installment. Therefore, from whatever angle we may look at it, it would be difficult to dispute that he committed default in payment of second installment despite being aware that the second installment was payable. The complainant therefore cannot seek to recover the entire amount which he had paid to the insurer. The State Commission has already directed payment of the surrender value of the policy to him. The directions given by the State Commission therefore does not require any modification. 8. As far as the second policy is concerned, since no payment at all was made by the complainant after he had paid the first installment, the second policy clearly lapsed on account the said non-payment. Since the surrender value of the second policy would have been payable only in respect of payment of 3 years and admittedly the complainant/petitioner did not pay even the second premium, no amount at all was payable to him under the second policy. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. |
