PRESENT

           SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   HON’BLE PRESIDENT

           SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

           SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, the Opposite Party No.1 is the insurance company, Opposite Party No.2 is the branch of the Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Parties approached the Complainant and requested and offered to purchase insurance policy by name Market Return Plan (Regular) and on request of the insurance advisor the Complainant signed the proposal form and all the information required in the proposal form.  The Complainant has opted Reliance Market Return Plan for a term of 10 years and the premium Rs.50,000/- per year.  The Complainant has paid first premium of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque dated 24.1.2007 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.10483964 dated:30.1.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The policy covers additional benefit i.e. accident rider for Rs.2,50,000/-. 

It is stated that, the Complainant has received a letter dated 22.10.2011 from the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that ‘the Complainant has surrendered the policy on 24.8.2011 and the surrendered value of the policy mentioned as Rs.22,174.13 and also deducted Rs.4,000/- towards the administrator investment without there being a prior notice’.  The Complainant surprised to receive the above said notice and asked the Opposite Parties to verify the documents intimating who had surrendered the policy and also sought explanation. The Opposite Party No.1 sent reply dated 16.11.2011 gave an explanation that the current status of the policy is ‘lapse–full surrender’. There is no explanation/clarification as to surrender value as well as deduction of Rs.4,000/- towards administration charges.  It is stated that, the Opposite Parties have mislead and cheated the Complainant that she will get high returns up to the double the amount she has invested. Feeling aggrieved by the above, the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘The Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- plus interest at the rate of 16% from the date of signing the proposal till realization and also pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by R.P.A.D, inspite of receiving version notice both the parties neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2.  The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1 and 2.   

III.     1. In support of the complaint, one Mrs.Nasira Ali (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C8. Opposite parties not filed any evidence by way of affidavit placed exparte.

          In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                          Point No.(i): Negative.

                         Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order. 

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):

In the instant case, we observed that, the Opposite Parties except issuing a repudiation letter to the Complainant on 2.6.2011 not chosen to attend and challenge against the evidence/documents produced by the Complainant in this case. The entire evidence on affidavit along with documents filed by the Complainant is not controverted/contradicted by the Opposite Party.  However, it is seen on record that, the Complainant one Smt.Nasira Ali obtained a Reliance Life Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party under Market Return Plan (Rugular) bearing policy No.10483964 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for 10 years i.e. as per Ex.C1. The yearly premium of Rs.50,000/- is payable under the policy.  It is also seen on record that, the Complainant paid only one premium of Rs.50,000/- (yearly) in this case on 30.1.2007.  Thereafter no premium has been paid by the Complainant in this case.  When the premium was not continuously paid automatically the policy will stand lapsed. But in the instant case, the Opposite Party offered the lapse/full surrender value of the policy of Rs.22,174.13 to the Complainant.  However, the Complainant resisted the above said amount and contended that they have not surrendered the policy and the Opposite Party is not correct to offer Rs.22,174.13 as against the Rs.50,000/- paid by her. But in the instant case, it need to be noted that the Complainant not paid the premium except one premium i.e. yearly premium of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2007.

It is a settled position that, the policy of insurance shall be subject to the conditions and previllages printed on the back of the policy.  As per the policy condition in case the insured is not paid the premium the policy will terminate upon payment of the full surrender value by the company.  From the above condition it is abundantly clear that payment of premium due had to be made within grace period as stipulated under the policy.  If such payment was not made the policy will terminate upon payment of fully surrender value by the company. But in the instant case, except the first premium no other premium was paid and hence the policy automatically will terminated and surrender value was offered by the company in this case.  As per the policy condition the percentage of fund value will be fifty percent (50%).  By considering the above aspect, as per the terms of the policy the Opposite Party offered 50% of the surrender value as there was no subsisting policy.  We observed that, the Opposite Party was, therefore, wholly justified in releasing 50% of the surrender value and no exception can be taken against such decision. 

For the reasons stated above, we hold that, if all the terms and conditions of the policy (contract between the parties) have to be kept in mind and given effect to, as the premium was due and was not paid, the policy lapsed and automatically terminated upon payment of surrender value.  No deficiency established in this case and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed as there is no merits.  No order as to costs.

          In the result, we pass the following:                     

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                              MEMBER