IMPORTANT POINT
Non-filing of written version amounts to admission of allegations made by complainant in consumer complaint.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.04.2013, passed by the U.T. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 38/2013, “M/s. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. vs. Dr. Nishi Gupta”, vide which, the order dated 04.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh in consumer complaint No. 542/2012, allowing the said complaint, was partly modified.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Dr. Nishi Gupta obtained Kotak Small Advantage Policy from the petitioner/opposite party (OP) by paying a premium of Rs. 50,000/-, vide cheque dated 15.03.2008; the said policy was received by her on 19.03.2008. After a lapse of three years, the complainant received a letter dated 23.03.2011 from the OPs informing her about the termination of the policy on the ground that the policy contract had not been revived within a period of three years, as stipulated vide circular no. 032/IRDA/ACT-1/Dec.2005 dated 21.12.2005. The OP stated that the revival period of the policy had ended on 18.03.2011 and accordingly, the policy had been terminated as per the terms and conditions. The OP also sent her a cheque dated 23.03.2011 for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the surrender value of the policy. According to the complainant, the deduction of Rs. 50,000/- minus Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 45,000/- on account of surrender charges was wholly unjust, arbitrary and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.02.2012 to the OP, but without any affect. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking payment of sum of Rs. 44,000/- for premium, after deducting Rs. 6,000/- as surrender charges as per the guidelines of IRDA. In addition, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost were also demanded.

3. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the complainant as surrender value alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and also to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. While passing the order, the District Forum relied upon the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (treatment of discontinued link insurance policies) Regulations 2010. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.04.2013, the petitioner OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. While passing the order, the State Commission observed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as surrender value already stood paid to the complainant. She would hence be entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/- minus Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 39,000/- only alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a copy of letter dated 23.03.2011 sent to the complainant by the petitioner, in which it was stated that vide circular dated 21.12.2005 of the IRDA, if the policy was not revived within the minimum revival period mentioned in the contract, the policy would be terminated at the end of the revival period and the surrender value, if any, would be payable. The learned counsel argued that the later circular issued in July, 2010 was not applicable in the present case, because the said circular applied to the policies taken after 2010. The learned counsel, further, stated that the Revision Petition nos. 2315 to 2317 of 2013 were decided on the basis of an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), according to which, th