Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal moved by Sri Ratan Ghosh, Complainant of complaint case No. 187/2016, which has been partly allowed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) vide its order dated 04-04-2017.

The complaint case, as depicted in the petition of complaint, shortly narrated, is that the Complainant paid 5 annual premiums in respect of the subject policy, including the premium paid at the time of inception of the policy.  However, owing to financial stringency, he was not in a position to continue the same any further and accordingly, he prayed for refunding the deposited sum from the OP Insurance Company.  However, since the OP Insurer did not refund the deposited sum, the Complainant filed the instant complaint case.

It transpires from the impugned order that though the OPs received notice of the complaint case, they did not turn up before the Ld. District Forum to defend their case.  Accordingly, the case was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents submitted that on receipt of legal notices dated 18-01-2016 and 02-03-2016 from the Appellant, after through scrutiny, the Company responded to the same vide letter dated 22-05-2016.  She argued that the Appellant could surrender the policy within the free-look period.  However, for some obscure reasons, he did not do so; rather, continued to renew the same by paying requisite premiums for successive years.  She asserted that, the Appellant could still surrender the policy and in that case, he would forgo the first premium amount and get back only 35% of the renewal premiums paid till date.  She claimed that the prayer of the Appellant for refund of the premium amount in the present case was against established law in relation to life insurance.  She claimed that there was no laches on the part of the Respondents and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant also in the matter. We have also perused the documents on record.

Photocopies of money receipts on record show that the Appellant, apart from paying the initial premium in the year 2010, paid due premiums for the subsequent three years, i.e., 2011, 2012 and 2013 and made part payment for the year 2014.  Admittedly, in terms of the Surrender Clause set out in the policy document, since the Appellant fulfilled the basic requirement of payment of 3 years policy premiums, he was entitled to get due surrender amount.  However, it transpires from the letter dated 24-05-2016, written by the Solicitors firm, who represented the Respondents, to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that financial difficulty of a person was not a justifiable ground to seek refund of the amount paid. 

In this regard, it may not be out of the context to mention here that contrary to the claim of the Respondents that apart from the legal notices served by the Appellant, the latter did not write anything to the them, it appears that the Appellant did approach the Respondent No. 1 seeking refund of the deposited sum through his letter dated 09-02-2016 and postal AD card does prove due receipt of the same by the addressee. 

Be that as it may, there is nothing to show that the Respondents ever offered to refund the eligible amount to the Appellant. It was a clear act of gross deficiency in service.  No doubt, had the Respondents acted in concert with policy terms and conditions, the Appellant need not file the complaint case in the first place.  Policy terms and conditions are binding on both sides.  However, for some obscure reasons, the Respondents did not walk the talk.

It is to be kept in mind that the Appellant needed the money to tide over his financial stringency.  That he was not a financially sound person gets evident from the fact that he paid all the renewal premiums in two phases. However, extreme arrogant attitude of the Respondent threw a spanner to all his planning. This is highly condemnable.  

Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the Appellant does deserve compensation for all the harassment that he endured all these years. 

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents with a cost of Rs. 15,000/- being payable by the Respondents to the Appellant.  The Respondents shall refund 35% of all premiums paid till 09-02-2016 in respect of the subject policy excluding the premium paid in the first policy year and taxes paid thereof within 40 days from today and provide a detail statement of account to the Appellant.  Respondents shall also pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Appellant for causing undue harassment, mental pain and agony to him.  The impugned order, accordingly, stands modified.