JUDGMENT

JUSTICE R. K. PATRA, PRESIDENT — The grievance of the com¬plainant is that the opposite party-insurance company in the name of selling “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” issued two individual/per¬sonal policies by adopting unfair trade practice.

2. The case of the complainant is that it is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 comprising three partners. E.Sadashiv Rao is its Managing Partner and his two sons - E. Suresh Kumar and E. Sridhar and other partners. The complainant deals in gold jewellery at Bhubaneswar. All the partners are fully insured for their lives with the Life Insur¬ance Corporation of India. In March 2002, one Nilotpal Chatterjee, on behalf of the opposite party-insurance company, approached the Managing Partner of the complainant and persuaded him to take “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” on the partnership firm. He assured that the partnership firm could be insured as the benefi¬ciary with the Managing Partner (E.Sadashiv Rao) as the ‘KEYMAN’ and in any event or happening to the Managing Partner, the sum assured would be paid to the firm. He also gave out that the partnership firm could avail the benefit of deduction of premiums paid as an expenditure from the profits of the firm under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Managing Partner of the complainant filled up the form for “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” by paying the first premium of rupees 88,358/- on 31.03.2002. After some time, the opposite party-insurance company requested that the ‘KEYMAN’ may be changed to other partners i.e. E.Suresh Kumar and E.Sridhar. It got the forms filled up by them on the plea that they face greater risk because of their frequent travel and they must be covered. The amount of Rupees 88,358/- paid earlier by the Managing Partner was adjusted as premiums for the policies of E.Suresh Kumar and E.Sridhar. When it came to light that the “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” is not applicable to a partnership firm, the complainant asked the opposite party-insurance company to refund the premiums already paid by the two partners. Accord¬ing to the complainant, there was no need for the other partners to take policy as they have already insured their lives with the L.I.C. The opposite party-insurance company instead of refunding the premiums, tried to amend the policy to give a picture of partnership insurance which is nothing but a kind of eye wash.

The prayer of the complainant is for refund of all the premiums paid with interest together with compensation, cost etc.

3. The opposite party-insurance company has filed written version denying each and every allegation of the complainant. It’s stand is that tax benefit of any insurance policy is second¬ary, the primary benefit being the risk covered under the policy. It asserts that a “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” can also be issued in case of a partnership firm and the premiums paid under the “KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY” are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

4. Before going into the merit of the case, it is appro¬priate to decide whether the complainant is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The opposite party - insurance company alleges that it is not a registered partnership firm. Annexure-20 to the rejoinder is the acknowl¬edgement of the Registrar of Firms certifying that the complain¬ant (E.Sadashiv & Sons) was registered under the Indian Partner¬ship Act, 1932. Annexure-21 is the deed of reconstitution of the partnership firm. By this deed, remuneration, interest and capital to the partnership were only provided, without effecting any change in the constitution of the partnership. From the above documents, the conclusion is irresistible that the complainant is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The opposite party-insurance company should not have taken such reckless and irresponsible plea.

5. There can be no dispute that in policy No. 0000305438 (Annexure-10), the life