Heard learned counsel for the  appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased two LIC policies bearing No. 593731352 and 593731354 on 28.1.2009 for sum assured of Rs.4,73,070/- and Rs.7,50,000/- respectively to be matured on 28.1.2024. It is alleged inter alia that after 10 years of policy inception the complainant made representation to the OPs for realization of maturity amount. OP No. 1 informed the complainant that he  is only entitled to Rs.8,40,000/- instead of maturity amount of Rs.12,77,424/- after 10 years. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint case.

4.     OPs filed written version admitting  to have  sold two policies to the complainant for the above amount with the date of maturity as on 28.1.2024. They also admitted that they have got the request at 10 years to surrender the policies and accordingly, they paid an amount of Rs. 9,65,226/-. Therefore, they have not committed any deficiency in service.

5.     After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxx       xxx         xxx

The complaint petition is allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the maturity value of Rs.12,77,424/- of the policy assured by the authorized LIC agent at the time of inception of policy with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy till payment. The OP 1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant. All the orders are to be carried within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Commission failing which the OPs shall pay interest @9% per annum on this amount till its realization.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant is entitled to total Rs.12,77,424/- after maturity of both the policies. Since the policies were surrender under the terms and conditions,   direction to pay such above amount is illegal and  not sustainable in law. There is no any deficiency in service and learned District Forum ought to have considered the policy condition and pass order. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     It is admitted fact that complaint has purchased two policies and both the policies have been surrendered at 10 years although they were meant for 15 years and according to the policy conditions of the policy was surrendered then the amount as applicable thereon should be made available to the complainant. Since Rs.9,65,226/- have been already paid as per the application on both the policies, the complainant cannot be entitled to the maturity amount because  of the policy conditions. Therefore, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside.

9.     The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.