Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
Raj Kumar Gupta —Petitioner
versus
M/s. IDBI Fedral Life Insurance
Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3280 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 16/03/2016 in Appeal No. 137/2015 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 21.8.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate along with Petitioner - In Person
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Policy cannot be cancelled in teeth of IRDA Regulations.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Cancellation of policy—Non-payment of interest—Request for cancellation and refund of premium paid was sent after free look period, as such policy could not be cancelled as per IRDA regulations and also as per terms of policy contract—However, as a special case, respondent/ insurance company agreed to refund amount with 9% interest—Revision petition dismissed.
Held: It would appear that the request for cancellation and refund of the premium paid was sent after the free look period, as such the policy could not be cancelled as per the IRDA regulations and also as per the terms of the policy contract. However, as a special case, the respondent/ insurance company agreed to refund the amount with interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh from 30.07.2012, the date on which the complaint was first lodged till 15.02.2013 the date of refund of the amount.
In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 9 and 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.03.2016 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 137 of 2015.
2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had taken a policy bearing no. 4000426072 called IDBI Federal Insurance Endowment and Money Back Plan during the year June 2012 on payment of Rs.5.00 lakh. The petitioner had opted to purchase insurance policy in the name of his grandson named “Prashant Gupta” whereas the respondent/ Opposite party / insurance company issued the said policy in the name of petitioner’s granddaughter. The petitioner immediately informed the representative of the respondent insurance company about the mistake done by the respondent, but the respondent remained silent and evaded the request of the petitioner continuously. The said documents in respects of grand daughter’s name had never been signed by the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent insurance company for cancellation of the policy during July 2012. The respondent cancelled the policy and remitted Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner’s account on 13.02.2013 but not paid the interest for using money for years. Thus a consumer complaint was filed.
3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI (District New Delhi) vide its order dated 13.01.2015 while disposing of the complaint observed as under:
“The opposite party filed reply and also filed an application for settlement on 15.07.2014 to pay 9% interest from the date of refund, i.e., 15.02.2013 interest plus Rs.15,000/- as litigation and deficiency but the opposite party failed to respond.
In the light of the settlement application moved by the OP, we allow the application and direct the OP to pay interest @ 9% from 15.02.2013 till payment on the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already paid.”
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.03.2016 while accepting the appeal gave the following observations:
“2. OP filed an application for settlement on 15.07.2014 and offered to pay interest @ 9% up to the date of refund. On the basis of said application, the District Forum directed OP to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of refund, i.e., 15.02.2013.
3. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset, it is mentioned that we are not clear from where the District Forum has picked up the date as 15.02.2013 from which date interest is to be paid. It appears that District Forum wanted to convey that it has picked up the same from the application for settlement moved by the OP. Similarly, the impugned order shows that application of OP purported to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges. That is again missing in application for settlement copy of which is placed at page 114 of the appeal.
4. Again it does not make any sense that interest has to be paid from 15.02.2013. Premium was paid on 30.05.2012, complainant sought cancellation on 30.07.2012 and OP refunded the amount on 15.02.2013. Again it does not make any sense that interest was to be paid till amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already paid, if the amount has already been paid, there was no question of paying interest after payment.
5. The contention of the counsel for appellant that neither evidence was taken nor arguments were heard is being mentioned for being rejected only. When OP has moved an application for settlement, there remained no need of evidence and arguments.
6. The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant is an old citizen of 90 years of age and was harassed by OP from July 2012 to 2013 when complaint was filed. We are at a loss to appreciate the plea. OP had already refunded the amount on 15.12.2013. Now, the complainant is pursuing with the case just to extrac
