Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 19-03-2018, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in CC/14/2017.  The case since been allowed in favour of the Respondent, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is preferred.

The complaint case was filed over non-payment of the entire maturity proceeds in respect of the disputed policy stood in the name of the Respondent.  Citing policy conditions, the Appellants refuted all allegations leveled against them by the Respondent and firmly stood their ground.

We heard both sides and gone through the documents on record.

On a reference to the copy of the policy schedule on record, we came across the following condition which is extremely crucial for determination of the fate of the dispute.

“Maturity Benefits: Subject to this Policy being in force, and the Life Assured surviving till the Vesting Date, the Life Assured shall have the option to withdraw up to a maximum of 33% of the balance outstanding in the PPA (Personal Pension Account of the Life Assured in which the  net contributions and bonus are credited and administrative charges, as detailed in clause 2(d) of the Schedule III are debited) in cash (or such limit as may be applicable under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, from time to time) and with the balance amount shall have the option of purchasing any one of the annuities as available on the Vesting Date  from SBI Life, or annuity from any other life insurer by giving a notice at least six months before the Vesting Date”.

A bare reading of the above condition was suffice to discern that under the policy, one was entitled to withdraw up to a maximum of 33% of the balance outstanding in the PPA in cash and rest of the amount would have to be utilized for purchasing annuity scheme according to the choice of the policyholder. 

Such being the unambiguous governing policy terms and conditions, binding on both sides of the spectrum, it is not understood, how did the Ld. District Forum derive at a decision that the annuity scheme was not mandatory for the Respondent. 

We afraid, there being no scope to seek refund of the entire maturity proceeds under the policy terms and conditions, it was futile on the part of the Respondent to expect any concession from the end of the Appellants.  While the Appellants acted strictly in accordance with the stipulated terms and conditions of the policy in question, they could not be held guilty of any sort of negligence.

It seems, the Respondent did not read between the lines of the subject policy on receipt of policy bond from the Appellants resulting which he was under the mistaken impression that he could seek withdrawal of 100% of the maturity proceeds as on the date of vesting. 

There being sufficient reason to appreciate the position of the Appellants, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order. 

The Appeal, consequently, stands allowed.