Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission 6 pages 3 separate sheet of papers.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Parties are the Insurance Company from whom the Complainant insured his life with a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 by purchasinga Life Insurance Policy No.0140540944 on 25.11.2009 for the period of 20 Years against Premium @Rs.14,879.00 per Annum which will be matured on 25.11.2029.

2. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the Complainant wanted to surrender the said policy due to his monetary crisis but, as per the advice/proposal of the Op No.1he took a loan for Rs.42,000.00 on 21.12.2012 from the Op No.2against the said policy instead of surrendering the same by giving consent signature in all papers as provided by the Op No.2 & 3.

3. But except verbal assurances, the Ops have not supplied the necessary loan documents in-spite of repeated demand by the Complainant.

4. The Complainant uninterruptedly deposited Total Premium amounting to Rs.1,33,911.00up to the year 2017 but, in the year 2018 unable to pay the premium online on the ground of Foreclosure of the said policy which the Complainant came to know without any explanation from the Customer Care Service of the Ops and after several struggle with the Op No.1.

5. Finding no alternative, the Complainant sent demand notices to the Ops with a request for providing the Policy Statement as well as Loan Statement for knowing the actual reason of such foreclosure without serving any notice or reminder by the Ops.

6. On the basis of such Demand Notices, the Ops in its’ reply on 13.03.2022 provided some irrelevant statement by bypassing the matter. Therefore, the Complainant sent another Demand Notice through his Ld. Advocate on 02.05.2022 to know the Surrender Value of the Policy as on 14.01.2018 through Accounts Data Base but, Ops don’t care of it by not supplying the same till filing of this instant petition. The Ops negligently avoided their liability to refund the excess value after loan repayment by willfully doing foreclosure of the policy to keep the Complainant in dark which caused not only huge financial loss but, also mental agony and pain of the Complainant.

7. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 13.03.2022when the Ops replied with erroneous and incorrect statement.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay the Excess Refund Amount after proper calculation of Loan Repaid with the Insurance Policy Premium.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to the Complainant towards harassment, mental tension, trauma, inconvenience and financial loss.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

8. Notices were duly served upon the both Ops but, the Ops preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them.

9. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Ops.

10. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

11. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the material on record including Legal-cum-Demand Notices, Prayer and Reminder Letters, Copy of Policy Deposit Renewal Premium Receipt of the Complainant; Reply Letter of the Ops. Submitted by the Complainant alongwith all related papers, documents and a submission for Compound Interest Calculation.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, this Commission vividly gone through the reply of the Ops against the Legal-cum-Demand Notice of the Complainant.

It appears from the Annexure-2 i.e. the Letter dated: 13.03.2022 sent by the Op to the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant that in Paragraph No.4, 5and 6at Page No.2 and 3, it is stated,“………… on 21.12.2012 your client opted for a Loan vide Loan Quotation No.9309293 for Rs.42,000.00 from the Company and by way of his representation in the Assignment Form dated: 21.12.2012, he has assigned the policy absolutely to the Company. It is necessary to state herein that, the Loan Application clearly bore the following terms under the Terms & Conditions in simple and legible words to be easily comprehensible by any individual:

• Interest will be calculated 10% p.a. compounding half yearly.
• Once the loan sanction the policy will be absolutely assigned in the favor of life insurer.
• Maximum eligible amount will be 85% of the surrender value.
• In case the amount of outstanding loan and interest become equal to the surrender value of the policy, then the policy will be foreclosed.

Therefore, it is evident that, owing to the amount of outstanding loan and interest becoming equal to the Surrender Value in your client’s policy fund hence the policy was foreclosed on 14.01.2018 due to loan outstanding. That, such a status of the policy, is in consonance with the loan terms and conditions and is not based on any changes brought forth by the Company without your client’s information or notice.”

“Termination of the Policy:

This Policy shall automatically terminate on the earlier occurrence of the following events:

1. On the Full Surrender of the Policy.
2. On expiry of the Revival Period if three full years Regular Premium has been paid.
3. On the death of the Life Assured.
4. On Foreclosure per Section 18.

………….. It is basis your client’s affirmations vide his signatures that, the policy has been assigned, and the charges levied thereunder are also in consonance with the terms and conditions stated in the loan application and the policy. Therefore, the Company has rendered its part of the contract of insurance with your client and has approved the loan amount as your client requested and thereafter has undertaken the assignment of the policy, only upon your client requested and thereafter has undertaken the assignment of the policy, only upon your client’s representations and not otherwise. Hence, the Company is not liable for any further service towards your client, owing to the Foreclosure of the policy as early as on 14.01.2028. ……….”

5. It appears that the Complainant has failed to submit any document regarding payment of Premium amount of Rs.1,33,911.00 till the year 2017 and has also not filed any document to show that he at all made any attempt to repay the loan amount of Rs.42,000.00 to the Ops. The Ops in this case sent the aforesaid Annexure-2, by explaining the grounds for foreclosure of the insurance policy. The Complainant has not been able to establish that he at all paid any part of the loan amount of Rs.42,000.00which he got on 21.12.2012.The Complainant has failed to establish that the foreclosure of the policy certificate was erroneous. One must come before any forum seeking justice with clean hand. The Complainant has failed to establish his bonafide intention for repayment of the said amount so that the Op would be unable to foreclose the insurance policy in between the year 2012 to 2018. As such the Complainant has failed to any Element of Negligence and Deficiency in Service against the Ops. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

6. Accordingly, both the points are decided against the Complainant.

7.  Thus, the complaint case has not succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-109 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the Ops.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this   judgment.