KIRAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The prayer of the complainant is that the cancellation of long-term Janta Accident Policy (hereinafter called the 'accident Policy' for short) issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant be set aside and it be directed that the said policy stands revived. It was also prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000/- as well as cost of the complaint.

(2.) Undisputably, the complainant obtained an accident policy issued by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 through their agent opposite party No.3. One-time premium of Rs.2,500/- was paid by the complainant. The accident policy covered the risk for the period from 30.4.1998 to 29.4.2008 i. e. , for 10 years. Assured amount of Rs.10 lacs was payable in the event of death of insured, under the terms and conditions enumerated in the policy. It is also not in dispute that by their letter dated 30.1.2002, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 cancelled the said policy w. e. f.7.2.2002. Proportionate amount of premium for the unexpired period of policy amounting to Rs.1,556/- was also refunded by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant.

(3.) It has been averred in the complaint that a cancellation notice dated 30.1.2002 was received by the complainant. It was further averred that it was mentioned in the said cancellation notice that as per Clause 10 of the terms of the policy, the cancellation of the accident policy could be effected by giving 7 days prior notice, and that the accident policy issued in favour of the complainant was being cancelled, as per the said clause. It was averred by the complainant that it was not clear as to on what basis, the policy could be cancelled. It was further averred by the complainant that the policy could not be cancelled after its issuance. It was averred that the notice of cancellation was received after the date of cancellation i. e. , 7.2.2002 as mentioned in the notice. It was averred that the said notice was not in due compliance of the conditions as laid down in Clause 10 of the said policy, which required 7 days prior notice. It was averred by the complainant that the said letter of cancellation dated 30.1.2002 had the effect of cancelling the policy, as cheque for the refund of the pro-rata premium was also sent along with said notice. It was, therefore, prayed by the complainant that the cancellation of the said policy be set aside, and the policy be treated as having revived and that compensation and costs be also awarded to the complainant.