Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the case of the complainant, is that the complainant had purchased 3 nos. of insurance policies from the opposite party which are as follows:-
Sl.No. Policy No. Mode of Premium Risk date Maturity date
- 590849460 Qtly Rs.717/- 12/97 12/07
- 590847200 Qtly Rs.575/- 03/97 06/07
- 590281510 Qtly Rs.687/- 9/92 09/07
It is alleged inter-alia by the complainant that the policies were started under Salary Savings Scheme and the complainant claimed after maturity for refund of premium amounts deposited in aforesaid policies by writing letters on dtd.16.06.2008,12.08.2008 and 09.12.2008 but the Ops refused to refund of the deposited premium amount of the complainant. Challenging same, the complaint was filed.
4. per contra, the OP filed written version stating that there is no cause of action to file the case and the cases are not maintainable. According to them the policy was purchased but the OP alleged that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both the parties. It is enumerated under clause-4 of the agreement that if the premium has not paid for complete three years, the policy holder is not entitled to get any benefit under the insurance policy. The OP has also averred that the policy No. 590281510 has already been surrendered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.7,500/- has been received by the complainant in respect of said policy. Therefore, the amount claimed is not refundable. As such, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ In conclusion, we allow the complaint petition and direct the OP to return all the premium which they have received in respect of two policies vide No.590849460 and 590847200, within two months from the date of order and no cost is awarded to either party. Hence, this case is disposed off accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has paid the premiums for the two policies for about one year or two years. He also submitted that the complainant has taken VRS from service after 1998. He requested the OP to return the deposit amount for said policies. Since three years not lapsed they have not refunded the premium. Learned District Forum, without understanding the special provisions and the policy conditions as envisaged have passed order which is contrary to law and as such same
should be set-aside. Learned District Forum has illegally observed that Section-64 of the Contract Act would apply whereas the insurance contract being guided by the special contract is to be understood from the policy condition as envisaged. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased two policies vide No.590849460 and 590847200 in and March and December1997 respectively which are disputed in this case. It is admitted fact that the complainant has taken VRS from service in the year 1998 and complainant did not pay further premium. After maturity he asked to refund the premium amount. Clause -4 of the policy reveals that the insured is not entitled to get back the so deposited premium amount if he has not deposited the premium amount for complete three years.
9. In view of the aforesaid conditions that when the premium has not been paid for complete three years, same would be forfeited without refund of any amount deposited. But learned District Forum has complied Section-64 of the Indian Contract Act. When there is specific contract under insurance law binding on both the parties, the said condition would prevent to Section-64 of the Contract Act on the principle that the special provision of law will prevail on the general law.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned order is illegal which should be set-aside and it is set-aside.
The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
