IMPORTANT POINT
IRDA guidelines allows processing time of 10 days for any request received from policy holder for surrender of policy.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.03.2012 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in SC Case no. FA/377/2011.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner invested more than Rs.1.00 crore with the respondent ICICI insurance company and in the process paid a premium of Rs.1.05 crore in three instalments of Rs.35 lakh each. According to the petitioner, as the respondent/ insurance company was not providing the assured sum of return, the petitioner decided to redeem his policy and accordingly on 11.05.2009 informed the respondent/ insurance company about his intention to withdraw the amount so invested with the insurance company. It was the case of the petitioner that in spite of specific instruction to the insurance company about the petitioner’s intention to redeem the policy in question, the insurance company without any rhyme and reasons killed time for about 11 days and in the process, deprived the petitioner for reinvestment of the aforesaid huge amount when the petitioner was in the know of the fact that there was a steep rise in the share market. According to the petitioner, on 22.05.2009 the respondent insurance company paid some meagre amount to the petitioner that what was actually redeemable and entitled to the petitioner and in the process, the petitioner has suffered a huge pecuniary loss. As the respondent insurance company did not pay the actual amount of loss of Rs.1,34,84,418.91 the petitioner had been compelled to institute the consumer complaint for proper redressal with the following prayer:

1. For return of Rs.1,189,826.63 calculated on the NAV value of the fund of the petitioner on 19.05.2009;

2. For Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damages;

3. For such amount of money which the petitioner is entitled to.

3. The respondent insurance company contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments made in the petitioner of complaint contending inter alia that the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds and the same was not at all entertainable. According to the respondent, as soon as the respondent insurance company received the surrender request from the petitioner, necessary action was duly taken by the respondent and that the amount offered and credited to the petitioner was just and proper and in terms of IRDA guidelines. In the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the respondent insurance company, the petition of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Judges’ Court, Alipore, Kolkata passed two orders one by a single Member Bench which has dismissed the complaint on pecuniary jurisdiction and the other by the President and one other Member who while allowing the complaint gave the following order:

“The case is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs.2000/-. The OPs are directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the NAV of the complainant’s deposit as it was on 11.05.2009 for 11 days after deducting the amount of Rs.31,638/- which have already been paid by the OP as a good gesture. The prayer for compensation is dismissed”.

5. Dis-satisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the District Forum observed as under:

“We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and find that the District Forum has rightly calculated the invested amount and the return, which was prayed for by the complainant and which after due calculation arrived at Rs. 1,34,84,418.90. The said sum is certainly much beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the