PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(Retd), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant(now appellant) took Insurance Policy bearing No.LSP1746771 from the Opposite Parties for the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and paid the annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. An assurance was given to him that, in case, he deposited premium for 3 years, he would get the sum assured. It was stated that due to domestic problem, the complainant made a representation to the Opposite Parties, with a request to reduce the annual premium from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The request of the complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties and annual premium was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- in November, 2008 and another Rs.15,000/- in November, 2009 towards annual premiums. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 24.8.2011 from the Opposite Parties intimating him that the policy had been auto foreclosed as the surrender value of the Policy was less than first year’s premium. The complainant, alongwith the letter received a cheque of Rs.50,000/-, being refund of the amount. The complainant sent legal notice dated 26.9.2011 to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him, directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%, besides legal expenses of Rs.22,000/-. 3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that the complainant purchased Insurance Policy bearing No.LSP1746771 from them for the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- with annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. It was stated that the complainant paid annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. It was further stated that he made a request for reducing the annual premium from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and his request was accepted. Thereafter, he deposited two annual premiums of Rs.15,000/- each in 2008 and 2009. It was further stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy. It was further stated that the complainant paid the last premium of Rs.15,000/- on 14.11.2009. Thereafter, he failed to pay the next premium, as a result whereof, surrender value of the same fell short of the first year’s premium, and, as such, the same stood auto-fore closed. It was further stated that in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could, within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policy document, request for cancellation of the same and refund of the premium amount. It was further stated that, as the Policy stood auto-fore closed, refund of Rs.50,000/- was made to the complainant. It was denied that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated, in the opening paragraph of the instant order. 6.. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased Insurance Policy bearing NoLSP1746771 from the Opposite Parties and deposited the first annual premium of Rs.50,000/- and two annual premiums of Rs.15,000/- in November,2008 and November,2009. In this manner, in total, he deposited Rs.80,000/- towards premium. The question arises, as to whether, the Opposite Parties were entitled to auto-fore close the Policy, in case, the surrender value thereof fell below the first year’s premium paid by the complainant, or not. As stated above, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the Policy. The complainant himself placed on record, copy of terms and conditions of the Policy. A close scrutiny of the Policy at pages 9 & 10 makes it clear that under clause 2 (c) (iii) (c )2 it is mentioned that “ We will continue to levy charges as specified in the Schedule until the Surrender Value falls below an amount equivalent to one year’s Regular Premium (as at the Commencement date), after which the Policy will automatically terminate and you will be paid the Surrender Value as per Article(5).” Since after 14.11.2009, the complainant failed to pay the remaining premiums falling due against him, the surrender value of the Policy fell below Rs.50,000/- i.e. first year’s premium, and, as such the policy stood auto-fore closed as per the terms and conditions, referred to above. The Opposite Parties, thus, acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy, which were accepted by the complainant. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that by auto-fore closing the Policy, on account of the reason, that the surrender value thereof fell below the first year premium of Rs.50,000/-, they were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. 9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, however, submitted that when the request of the complainant was accepted by reducing the annual premium from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/- no new Policy was issued in his favour containing the fresh terms and conditions. He further submitted that, as such, he was not bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy, originally issued. The Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that except the reduction of annual premium, on the request of the complainant, the other terms and conditions remained unchanged, and, as such, the question of issuance of fresh Policy, did not, at all arise. Since only the annual premium was reduced, on the request of the complainant, and other terms and conditions of the Policy remained unchanged, in our considered opinion, there was no question of issuance of fresh Policy in favour of the complainant. The complainant very well knew the terms and conditions of the Policy. He knew what would the consequences, if the surrender value fell below the first year premium, but even then he failed to deposit the premium after November,2009. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that fresh Policy was not supplied to him, after the amount of annual premium was reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, on his request, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 11. The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
