The central legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of insurance agents to remind policyholders about premium remittance, as per IRDA Regulation, and the prohibition of agents collecting premium on behalf of the insurance company under Section 49 of the LIC Act 1956.

ORDER

Jagannath Bag, Member - The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in Case No. CC/160/12, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against OP Nos. 1 and 2 but same is dismissed against OP No. 3 but without cost.

2. The Complainants case, in brief, was as follows:

The Complainant, being convinced by OP No. 3 namely, Smt. Soma Dey ,purchased an insurance policy ( No. 106532728) from OP Nos. 1 and 2 on payment of half-yearly premium of Rs. 12,500/- in 2008. The Complainant used to hand-over cheques of premium to the said Soma Dey who took all responsibility to deposit premiums of the Insurance Policy . Subsequently, he received a cheque of Rs. 18,438/- along with reference letter from the OP Insurance Company and came to know that his policy had been terminated . The Complainant returned the cheque to the OP Insurance Company with the request to regularise the policy but again the said amount was returned with fresh cheque without regularising the said policy which was tantamount to negligent manner of service on the part of the OP Nos. 1 and OP No. 2 . Allegedly the OP No. 3 also failed to discharge her duties of collecting the premium from the Complainant and though OP Nos. 1 and 2 had a duty to remind the Complainant that the premium had fallen due also failed to do their duty. The Complainant filed a case before the Ld. Forum below with prayer for direction, interalia to revive the Policy No. 0106532728 upon receiving the balance premium. The complaint was contested by OP No. 1 and 2 by filing W. V. asserting that the Complainant was himself responsible for his fault and they had no responsibility for the conduct of the agent and the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed and prayed for.

3. Ld. Forum below after having perused the material on record including the W. V. observed that the agent Mrs. Soma Dey opened the policy after collecting materials from the Complainant and the Complainant being a busy lawyer of Barasat and North 24 Parganas, relied fully upon Smt. Soma Dey being the agent of OP No. 1. Premium cheques were sent on four occasions, but on the 5th occasion, the said agent failed to send the cheque in time for which Complainants policy was terminated. Ld. Forum below also observed that in many cases, the corporate concern allure the customers through their agents and though the Insurance Company is a renowned one they failed to provide proper service through their agent and corporate office. In their attempt to expand their business they engage such agents but no proper service is given to the customers in connection with collection and deposit of premium.

4. Ld. Forum below further observed that the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 being principals are also jointly liable for causing harassment to the Complainant and accordingly, are liable to pay the entire deposited premium with compensation. A total amount of Rs. 65,000/- was ordered to be paid to the Complainant together with cost of Rs. 5,000/- within a month from the date of order, failing which for each days delay OP No. 1 and 2 shall have to pay punitive damage of Rs. 200/- till full satisfaction of the total decreed amount . OP No. 3, however,was found to have not been liable to pay any amount to the Complainant, as the Complainant was not a consumer under the OP No. 3 .

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the OP Insurance Company has come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the order has been wrongly passed by the Ld. Forum below who failed to consider that the Appellant had made payment of the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy . The Complainant was responsible for payment of any premium due and such responsibility and risk can not be shif