GORA CHAND CHATTERJEE Vs. KARAN KUMHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'The Act') assails the order dtd. 8/5/2019 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, 'State Commission) in First Appeal No. 437 of 2018 arising out of the order dtd. 6/4/2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata (in short, 'District Forum') in C.C. No. 512 of 2014.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner / complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner'), are that he obtained a Unit Linked Pension Policy under Life Time Pension II Policy No. 02261671 (in short, the 'Policy') from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. , the opposite party/ respondent, and paid the first annual premium of Rs.45,000.00. It is averred that the opposite party withdrew the said policy from the market as per Circular guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) dtd. 21/12/2005 which was intimated to the petitioner by the insurance agent before the due date for the second premium that was due on 31/12/2006. It is stated that although the opposite party withdrew this policy from the market on 1/7/2006, it did not intimate the petitioner. In December, 2008 the petitioner had received a Unit Statement from the respondent. When the petitioner sought a refund of his policy vide letter dtd. 28/8/2009, the opposite party conveyed the Unit Statement for the period 1/12/2008 to 31/12/2009. Thereafter, on 12/3/2014 the Senior Manager of the opposite party informed the petitioner about the foreclosure of the policy w.e.f. 2/1/2012 and enclosed a cheque for Rs.14,321.00 dtd. 8/3/2014 as foreclosure amount based on the then prevailing Net Asset Value (NAV). Following some correspondence with the opposite party, the petitioner filed C.C. No.512 of 2014 before the District Forum, Kolkata which was dismissed on 6/4/2018 on the ground that there was no deficiency in service since the opposite party/ respondent had calculated the "surrender value" as per the conditions of the policy. The petitioner then approached the State Commission in appeal against this order, which was partly allowed and in addition to the foreclosure amount, granted compensation of Rs.3,000.00 and litigation cost of Rs.2,000.00 to the petitioner. This order is impugned before us with the prayer that the opposite party/ respondent should refund the amount as per the NAV as on 12/3/2014, Rs.20,000.00 as compensation, Rs.20,000.00 as litigation cost and Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony.

(3.) The respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the insurance policy was a contract the terms of which cannot be altered subsequently or interpreted beyond the terms agreed upon. It is contended that the averment of the petitioner that he had been informed by the insurance agent and not by the respondent about the change in the policy conditions is not a valid agreement as it had done so vide an SMS dtd. 19/9/2011. It is contended that the policy was not renewed by the petitioner for over 5 years and therefore, as per clause 11 of the policy it was terminated on 2/1/2013. As the petitioner did not encash the cheque of Rs.14321.44 sent on 2/1/2012, it was resent on 9/3/2014 which was encashed on 25/3/2014. It is contended that only the first premium was paid and on account of non-payment of the second premium on 31/12/2009, the policy ceased as per clause 6.4 (6) read with clause 5 as per which benefits were payable either on death or surrender whichever was earlier. It was contended that the State Commission had rightly appreciated in the impugned order with the IRDA circular relied upon by the petitioner applied only to new policies and did not cover existing policies or cases of non-payment of premium on existing policies.