IMPORTANT POINT
Once deficiency had been found, it was logical and just for the OP to not only return the capital amount of Rs 30 lakh but also compensate for the interest foregone by the complainant.

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition No. 191 of 2019 filed on 22.1.2019 on behalf of the petitioner/complainant-Sri KanwaljitSingh, by POA Sri Ranjit Singh (hereinafter complainant) assails the order dt 14.8.2018 of the Punjab Consumer State Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter State Commission) in F.A. No.208 of 2018.Vide this order, State Commission had modified the District Forum’s order dated 6.03.2018 in EA 25/2017. In turn, this EA 25 of 2017 was filed before the District Forum for execution of it’s order dt. 30.3.2015. This order dt. 30.3.2015 had become final as the appeal against it had also been dismissed by the State Commission vide it’s order dt.15.9.2016. Basically, the complaint stood allowed and the respondents/OPs-Insurance Company (hereafter OP) were directed to pay 9% interest p.a. on the amount of Rs.30 lakh premium, from the date it was received by the OP till the date it was refunded to the complainant, adjusted for interest already paid for 18 days.The District Forum had allowed this interest by way of compensation.

2. To understand this revision petition, it is necessary to have a brief history of the proceedings so far.

3. The complainant, a NRI, in January 2008, took three policies, paying by way of premium a total amount of Rs.30 lakh, from the OP. Not satisfied with the manner in which service was provided, he sought cancellation of the policies and return of the amount with interest. The OP returned Rs. 30 lakh to the complainant on 3.9.2012 with Rs. 8,876/- penal interest for delay of 18 days in this refund. No interest on the 30 lakh was however paid. So, consumer complaint CC/92/2014 dt 12.3.2014 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, seeking Rs.50,000/- for mental tension etc., 9% interest for 4 ½ years on Rs.30 lakh, and Rs.10,000/- as cost. This complaint was contested through a written reply but unsuccessfully: The OP argued that there was no agreement for payment of interest; that the policies opted for were completely investment oriented and as such the matter itself not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The OP further submitted that after due investigation, the policies under dispute were cancelled and the premium amount of Rs 30 lakh was refunded, with interest @ 6% p.a. for the delayed period of 18 days.

4. The District Forum found that the policies were not purely unit linked policies; rather, they were composite as they did contain a policy of life risk. Post cancellation, only the premium amount of Rs.30 lakh, with interest only for delay of 18 days, had been returned, even though the premium had remained with the OP for about 4 ½ years. On the logic that some mis- selling and deficiency stood established by the very fact that the OP had needed time consuming investigation to examine the complainant’s grievance, it concluded that it was a case of cancellation after finding some substance in the complaint. Thus, in a way, the OP had admitted its own fault. Accordingly, the District Forum vide order dt. 30.3.2015, directed the OP to pay 9% interest on the premium of Rs.30 lakh, from the date it was received by the insurance company till the date it was refunded to the complainant, adjusted for the interest on account of 18 days delay that has already been paid to the complainant. It was further directed that the payment be made within one month of the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% interest would continue to be payable till the date payment was complete. A cost of Rs 3,000/- was also awarded. Appeal No. A/1021/2015 filed by the OP before the State Commission was dismissed on 15.09.2016, with the direction that the amounts of Rs. 3,25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- ie. a total of Rs. 3,50,000/- , deposited with the commission for stay, be remitted to the complainant, and the remaining amount be also remitted to the complainant, within 30 days from receipt of the order. This net remaining amount was ca