Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Swapan Kumar Haldar —Petitioner
versus
Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.4 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 10/10/2017 in Appeal No. 653/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 23.6.2020
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Insurance – Unit Linked Insurance Policy – Refund of amount paid and policy claim – Scope – Petitioner-Complainant purchased aforesaid policy for ten years but after paying two installments of premium be discontinued the payments – Since policy in question had inherent risk of market fluctuations, thus the plea of complainant that he did not got the return which he was assured not accepted – Respondent No. 1 cannot be made liable for market fluctuations – Investment risk in the portfolio has to be borne by the policyholder – Petitioner discontinued paying after two years and even did not seek revival of policy – Policy conditions provide for several alternatives to policy holder for any change of mind to make necessary corrections – Petitioner instead of availing of alternatives available tried to shift his responsibility on respondents – No deficiency in service found on part of respondents – Interference with impugned order passed by State Commission declined. [Paras 7 to 11]
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No.653/2015 dated 10.10.2017.
2. The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that Respondent No.2, agent of Respondent No.1 Insurance Company advised him to take Unit Linked Insurance Policy from Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. He was informed by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 to pay a premium of Rs.2 lakhs per year and promised him a return of 40% after a period of five years. On his advice the Petitioner took the Unit Linked Insurance Policy and paid premium for two years and noticed from the website of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 that the returns from the policy were less than that was promised to him by Respondent No.2. Having not received a satisfactory response from Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, the Petitioner approached the District Forum seeking refund of the amount paid by him.
3. The case was contested by Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 that the said policy was a Unit Linked Insurance Policy with attendant market risk. The policy issued by them was a Unit Linked Insurance Policy for ten years and the policy holder could surrender the policy and seek refund as per the terms of the policy. The Petitioner had paid only two installments of the premium and thereafter discontinued making payments.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and on the basis of record passed the following order: -
“1. The Complaint No.143/2014 is partly allowed.
2. If the Complainant wants to renew this policy, the Opposite Party shall allow the Complainant to renew the policy without charging the penalty for 3rd year.
OR
In case the Complainant does not want to renew the policy the Opposite Party No.1 shall return the amount of premium paid by the Complainant after deducting the necessary charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
3. No order towards the charges for mental agony and litigation expenses.
4. Opposite Party shall comply with this order within 45 days from the date of outward of this order.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum Respondent No.1/Insurance Company preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties and also perusing the record passed the following order: -
“(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The Insurance Company at the option of the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and if the terms and conditions of the policy so permit, may accept the premium for the third year of the policy along with charging necessary fees, penalty for accepting the same under the terms and conditions of the said policy and if it is not possible within the terms and conditions of the policy then to pay to the complainant the surrendered value of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the said policy.”
6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Complainant filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
7. Heard the Amicus Curiae appointed for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The sum and substance of submission advanced by Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was that Respondent No.2 misguided the Petitioner/Complainant assuring him high returns on his deposit and thereby cheated him.
7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the Petitioner/Complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, had applied for an insurance policy. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was made aware that the policy was subject to market risk. Petitioner paid only two premiums of Rs.2 lakhs each and thereafter stopped paying further premium and as such the Petitioner defaulted in making payment of the insurance premium. The Petition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
