Complainant Manjit Kaur vide the present complaint has prayed that the tilted opposite parties (jointly called ‘the OP insurers’) be directed to return to her the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited with them along with interest @ 24% PA from the date of deposit till its actual realization besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental & physical harassment and litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she being an illiterate lady was allured by the OP insurers’ agent Paramjit Kaur to deposit Rs.20,000/- as the first policy premium (of the total 5 annual premiums) to receive back Rs.2,00,000/- but later on at the time of the deposit of second premium could know that the premiums shall have to be deposited for 20 years to reap back any promised benefits. From that time onwards, she had been imploring the OP insurers to return back her deposited amount and finally disillusioned at their false promises and deferments etc she has preferred the present complaint with the desired relief duly prayed, as hereinabove.

3.       Upon notice, the OP filed the written version reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and moreover no cause of action has ever arisen in her favor. The Policy holder (and also the proposer) duly accepted and acknowledged the terms of the Policy upon purchase while signing the proposal form and have also enjoyed the insurance cover during all these years and thus there has been no deficiency in service on the OP’s part. Further, the insurance policy is not an investment scheme where the amount invested/paid is liable to be received back with interest etc. The risk covered is the main service (its benefit and purpose) and it is a paid service as well; the accrued benefits etc are the collaterals, only. The OPs have also quoted some Superior court verdicts in support of their objections/averments etc. On merits, it is stated that the Policy has been lying in a state of lapse in the absence of payment of the premiums fallen due since long and as such the OP insurers are unable to settle and pay the surrender value of the Policy as per its terms and thus no cause of action has ever arisen in the complainant's favor and the present complaint, being not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (henceforth, the Act), need be dismissed with costs.

4.       Both the parties have produced/filed their respective documents in evidence to support their allegations/pleadings and objections/averments etc on record and their learned counsels have duly put forth their respective arguments to support their respective claims. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1 along with Policy data/premium-receipt duly exhibited here as: Ex.C2, in support of his complaint and the pleadings made therein. The OPs, in reciprocation, has produced the exhibits numbered as: Ex.OP1 (affidavit of the OP’s Manager Legal Harsimran Singh) and Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 duly supporting the contents of its written reply and other pleadings/objections etc.

5.       We find that the complainant Manjit Kaur in the very Ist paragraph of her complaint has declared herself to be an illiterate lady who could only sign (scribble) her name in ‘English’ and that goes un-rebutted by the OP insurers throughout the present proceedings. This claim of illiteracy is further corroborated by the indication of her ‘highest-qualification’ as 10^th but without any documentary evidence and the family’s ‘Ration Card’ being taken as her ‘age-proof’ as vividly shown in the related Application Form Ex.OP3, here. Further, the very Application Form Ex.OP3 is filled-in capital letters by another person (Paramjit Kaur Agent # 4361282, the OP3) to shade-in/ avoid detection etc but hefting-out/ leaving blank the columns of the ‘vernacular-declaration’ on page ‘6’ of the exhibit and thus depriving it of its pious ‘authenticity’ and unwittingly supporting the complainant’s claim of ignorance of the terms and conditions of the Policy in question. At the same time, it goes on to establish the employment of ‘unfair trade practices’ by the OP insurers through its registered agents (with allotted code nos. etc) and unsparingly resulting into proven ‘deficiency in service’ on its part. Further, the Proposal Form implies that the insurance contract will commence only upon a written acceptance of this proposal by the OP (issued on its usual terms and conditions). The prime allegation in the complaint has been that the complainant was allured by the OP’s agent representative with some very attractive allurements/ benefits (terms of the Policy) that were never allowed once the Policy was purchased. Even, the complainant has expressed her unawareness about the refund of ‘the surrender value’ only after the regular run of the Policy for first three years. Obviously, the complainant has been alleging that she was not apprised of the true and factual terms and conditions of the Policy and under the circumstances, it was desired of the OP to have proved the acceptance and acknowledgement of these by her. But, for reasons best known to the insurers only no such document has been either produced or any other cogent and/ or acceptable evidence has been led to prove the same. What to say of the acceptance of the terms of the Policy by the complainant even ‘the terms’ itself or even its dispatch to the complainant has been not even attempted to be proved. It is again not understood as to how the OP in the written reply have assumed that the complainant/policy holder has not raised any objections about the terms and conditions of the Policy, which means that she had agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy; whereas the fact being that the very base of the this very complaint is based upon the allegations of concealment and misstatements (false allurements) pertaining to the terms and conditions of the Policy in question. Thus, we conclude that the complainant’s consumer rights have indeed been infringed at the hands of the OP insurers as envisaged under the Act and as such they are held liable for the same.               

6.       In the light of the all above, we find and hold the titled OP insurance providers as being guilty of having indulged in an unfair trade practice amounting to deficiency in service and thus ORDER them to refund back the amount of Rs. 20,000/- received as policy premium along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest from the date of deposit of the amount with the OP insurers. 

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.              

     (Naveen Puri)

           President      

ANNOUNCED:           (G.B.S.Bhullar)                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 09, 2015.                     Member                                     Member           

*MK*