Insurance policy terms must be clear and fair, especially concerning lapsed policies and refunds.

1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 against an order dated 29.6.2017 in C.C. No. 789/2013 of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (in short the District Forum). The District Forum by its order directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,23,800 paid by the complainant with 18% interest from 19.3.2010 till realization. The opposite parties were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 towards compensation and Rs.5,000 towards costs.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had taken an insurance policy 'HDFC Children's Double Benefit Plan' with a term of 15 years on 16.3.2009. The annual premium of the policy is Rs.1,11,900. He had remitted the premium for two years and thereafter due to financial stringencies he could not pay the subsequent premiums. The complainant hence decided to discontinue the policy and as such he had requested the opposite parties to withdraw from the policy and also asked them to refund the premium amount, which he had paid. Even though the opposite parties had accepted the request and sent a reply stating therein that they would resolve the matter within two weeks, they did not act upon the request even after the lapse of 1½ years. Hence alleging deficiency in service complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the premium amount of Rs.2,23,800 with interest and also for compensation and costs.

3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant had remitted the premium only for two years and as per the conditions of the policy if the premium remains unpaid for 15 days after the due date, the policy will lapse from the due date of the first unpaid premium. If the premium is defaulted, the benefits under the policy would be forfeited. The policy may still acquire a surrender value which could be determined by the company and if the policy does not have a surrender value, the basic benefit will lapse and any additional benefit will be cancelled and no benefit will be payable. The policy of the complainant did not have a surrender value and no benefit was payable to the complainant. The opposite parties thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Ext. B1 policy conditions was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. Appreciating the materials produced the District Forum concluded that the terms and conditions are in fine print and hence not readable with naked eyes and so the conditions were not binding on the complainant. The District Forum further held that non - inclusion of a provision to surrender the policy with a long term of 15 years was nothing but unfair trade practice done by the opposite parties. On such conclusion, the District Forum passed the impugned order under challenge.

6. Heard the appellant and perused the records. There is no representation on the part of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the finding of the District Forum that the policy document is in fine print and therefore not readable and hence not binding on the complainant is erroneous. The complainant himself did not have a case that the terms and conditions were not readable. Complainant has stated that he decided to discontinue the policy due to financial stringencies. The complainant had accepted the policy after agreeing to the terms and conditions of the policy. He had an option to return the policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy. The complainant did not exercise his option to return. By accepting the policy, he has agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum went wrong in f