IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Shift in Pecuniary Jurisdiction Criteria – Under the 2019 Act, jurisdiction is no longer based on the “value of the claim” (the total amount of money the consumer is asking for). Instead, it is strictly governed by the actual amount paid as consideration for the goods or services.
(2) Requirement for Specificity in Class Actions – NCDRC rejected the complaint for being “vague.” It held that for a representative complaint under Section 35(1)(c) to be entertained, the complainant must provide specific details regarding the consideration paid to ensure it crosses the Rs.2 crore threshold for the National Commission. Merely assuming a large number of affected policyholders exists without evidence of the “consideration paid” is legally inadequate.

ORDER :

This complaint has been filed alleging deficiency and unfairness on the part of the Insurance Company on the ground that the increase of premium during renewal has seen a hike of almost 93% over four years and these hikes are arbitrary compelling the complainant and other similar policy holders to pay an increased premium, which is being done under protest for the sake of continuity of the coverage.

2. It is also alleged that the aforesaid increase is contrary to the 10% cap provided for the senior citizens, which according to the complainant is contrary to the IRDAI circular dated 30.01.2025 and therefore non compliance thereof is yet another unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company.

3. It is urged that the aforesaid conduct of the Insurance Company severely\affects, particularly the senior citizens and therefore this complaint alleging unilateral and arbitrary increase in renewal premium, which is not only unreasonable, but is also violative of the IRDAI regulations that deserves to be taken notice of and calling upon the Insurance Company to answer this complaint.

4. The contention is that the abrupt escalation and unprecedented and unlawful demands affects thousands of policy holders across the country, who are existing customers of the opposite party- Insurance Company. It is for this reason that the present complaint filed in a representative capacity purported to be under Section 35 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in order to represent the cause of consumers who have purchased or renewed the Health Companion Policy issued by the opposite party - Insurance Company from 01.01.2023 onwards.

5. The complaint has been filed with the averment contained in paragraph 29, which is as follows:—

“29. It is respectfully submitted that the exact number of consumers effected by the Opposite Party’s arbitrary premium increases is not presently known to the Complainant and can only be ascertained from the records of the Opposite Party. The present complaint is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all such affected policy holders of the “Health Companion” policy. Even if the total claim of the Representative Class, including excess premiums paid, compensation for mental harassment and costs, is aggregated, will exceed Rs.2 crores. Hence, the present complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’bie Commission. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Hon’bie Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Ifs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1117.”

6. The nature of the complaint seems to be framed as a public interest litigation and we may point out that under Chapter III of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Central Consumer Protection Authority has been notified to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumers, unfair trade practices or misleading advertisements that are prejudicial to the interest of the public and consumers. The establishment speaks of the said object in Section 10 of the Act. Powers have been given to different authorities to investigate the same and complaints are entertainable under Section 17 of the Act, where unfair trade practices prejudicial to the interest of the consumers as a class can be forwarded to any of the authorities mentioned under the said Chapter. The powers of the Central Authority are contained in Section 18.

7. Apart from this a class action can also be instituted under Section 35 (1) (c) of the Act by one or more consumers having the same interest or for the benefit of consumers so interested with the permission of the Commission.

8. For this a complaint has to be instituted as defined under Section 2 (6) of the Act and a Consumer for that matter has also been defined under Section 2 (7) of the Act.

9. What is more important is the definition of the word “Complainant” under Section 2 (5), where the Central Authority or the Central or State Governments can also be complainants, apart from