Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-02-2016 of Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 154/2015.

Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum was that he took an insurance policy from the OP for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-  in the year 2006.  After expiry of five years, as per policy terms and conditions, the Complainant applied before the OP for refunding the entire money, but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

On the other hand, case of the OP was that the Complainant took a life insurance policy, namely, ‘Swarna Raksha 1 ROC’ where annuities is payable till the Annuitant is alive.  It is further stated that in this type of insurance product, maturity is not payable.  The OP paid annuities till 17-08-2012 and rest of the annuities are pending for want of ‘Certificate of Existence’.

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

It is stated by the Respondent that, in accordance with policy terms, he applied for getting back the entire money pertaining to his investment in an annuity product namely, ‘Swarna Raksha 1 ROC’. 

However, on going through the policy documents it emerges that the policy cannot be surrendered.  It is also stipulated therein that under the policy, annuity is payable up to the end of the policy year on which the death of the annuitant occurs and on the death of the annuitant, the nominee shall receive the lump sum amount paid, as given in the policy schedule.  Any annuity instlment fall due after the date of the annuitant, paid by the Company will be recovered from the lump sum amount payable to the nominee and thereafter, the policy shall terminate. According to the policy condition, the annuitant is required to produce existence certificate at least 15 days prior to the policy anniversary date every year.

While in terms of the policy in question, there is no provision for surrendering the same, and secondly, given that no such allegation is made from the side of the Respondent that he was not explained the policy terms and conditions properly at the time of filling up the proposal form, the Respondent cannot feign ignorance about the aforesaid provisions of the policy. 

Since insurance is nothing but a contract in between the Insurer and Insured, terms and conditions of the said policy is binding on both sides and none can seek to retreat abruptly.  It is totally illegal to do so. We, therefore, see no infirmity in Appellant’s stubborn refusal to refund the principal sum of the policy in question. 

It seems, the Ld. District Forum allowed the case out of sheer sympathy.  Unfortunately, this is not permissible.  Consumer Forum is mandated to adjudicate a dispute in accordance with the law of the land and not the other way round.  It cannot neither allow a case simply buoyed by sympathy nor disallow the same driven by surmises and conjecture. As an adjudicator, it should be neutral to the hilt and that should be visible in its conduct.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.