IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant being a senior citizen, rate of interest can be enhanced.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—In both Revision Petitions, the same Order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Commission has been impugned; both Petitions are being disposed of together.

The Petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 12.12.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 106 of 2018 and F.A. No. 576 of 2018 arising out of the Order dated 19.12.2017 in C.C. No. 106 of 2016 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

The Petitioners herein, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.

The Respondent herein, Sat Narayan Gupta, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Insurance Co.

Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 19.12.2017 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Commission and the Petitions.

3. The dispute relates to refund of the premia paid by the Complainant to the Insurance Co. along with interest / compensation.

4. The District Forum, vide its Order dated 19.12.2017, allowed the Complaint.

For ready appreciation, extracts from the appraisal made by the District Forum are reproduced below:

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that OP No. 1 approached the complainant and induced him by stating insurance policy of the OP is very profitable and if the complainant purchases their policy, then the complainant will get huge benefits and policy will be for five years and complainant will have to pay premium of Rs.50,000/- per year only for five years and after five years, the complainant will get huge profits, bonus and interest on the deposited amount. It is further contended that when the complainant received the policy cover note and came to know about the fact that in the said documents the period of policy is not five years, rather it is 15 years, whereas the complainant never purchased the said policy for the term of 15 years, so the complainant made a representation and requested the Ops for withdrawing/cancelling the policy and requested to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest.

7 . On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the Ops is that in accordance with clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002, every policy document sent by the complainant to the policy holder is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under “Free Look Period” but the life assured never approached the company for any discrepancy made in the application or any grievance relating to the policy or its terms and conditions during free look period, implying that the life assured had agreed to the contents in the application form. This argument of learned counsel for the Ops has no merit at all because the Ops in their written statement themselves admitted that life assured/proposer was to make the yearly installments of Rs.25,000/-, while from the perusal of First Premium Receipt Ex. C6, it is made out that the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- each for five years being the yearly installment including service tax and this document also pertains to the Ops. Moreover, the complainant also came to know this fact that the policy is 15 years when the complainant received the policy cover note from the Ops. So, complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- refunded from the Ops.

8. In view of the above said discussion,