Consumers must be made fully aware of premium obligations before agreeing to insurance contracts; misrepresentation leads to liability for refund and damages.

ORDER

AVM J. RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of 15 Second Appeals preferred by the Opposite Parties/Appellants, namely Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd, arising out of the common order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (State Commission) which upheld the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) order dated 10.11.2023 partly allowing the complaint.

2. Details of the SAs covered in this order are as under:

3. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Appeals are similar, these Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, Second Appeal No. 31 of 2025 is being considered as the lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from Complaint No. 449/2020.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that in 2019 the Complainant was approached by the agents of OP for an investment scheme which was supposed to yield high profits. Being allured by the offers made by the agents of OP, the Complainant purchased Policy No. 53449244 namely “Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Saving Increasing Income Plan” which was issued by the OP upon collecting a premium amount of Rs 2,50,000. It was assured to the Complainant that the amount paid in the form of premium shall be invested in the form of an FD and only one time premium of Rs.2,50,000 was needed to be paid. It is the case of the Complainant that initially he was not made aware of the fact that he was required to pay yearly premiums for 5-years to avail the final policy amount, which was to mature after 12 years. He was informed at the time of policy proposal that he was supposed to pay premium only for one year, with a maturity period of 5 years. Thus, it is the case of the Complainant that he was deliberately misled by the agents of OP to obtain money from him. It was only after he received another reminder to pay next yearly premium instalment he got concerned, went to OP Insurer office to inquire and he was told that the policy he purchased was for 12-year period, with yearly premium to be paid by him for a period of 5 years. Being aggrieved of the same, the Complainant filed a CC No. 449/2020 before the District Forum.

5. Upon service of notice, OPs filed their written version, wherein OPs denied all allegations and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint, alleged concealment of material facts, and contended that the Complainant had not approached Consumer Forum with clean hands. It was contended that the subject policy was duly issued by OPs to the Complainant and that the terms and conditions of the policy were explicit, stipulating that the premium was payable for a period of five years and the policy term was twelve years. The allegation of mis-selling of the policy was specifically denied by the OPs. According to OPs, the Complainant had himself filled in the proposal form, affirmed the correctness of the particulars furnished therein and appended his signatures thereto, thereby evidencing informed consent. OPs asserted that the complaint had been filed with the sole intent of harassing the OPs and securing an undue and unjustified monetary gain. On these grounds, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6. The District Forum, vide common order da