STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/1064/2015 Sri. Mallinath Jatkar PRESENT ADDRESS - Aged About 52 years, 21-E/B,3rd stage, Industrial Suburb Behind Chanakya Choultry Mysore-570008. ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance PRESENT ADDRESS - 37,1st floor, Venjay Edifice Above Sony World, Opposite to Hardwick School, JLB Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysore. ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Paneesh Kumar (Advocate) FOR THE RESPONDENT:

J.M.P (Advocate)

DATED: 24/07/2025

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

th DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL No.1064/2015 Shri.Mallinath S/o late Siddaramappa Jatkar, Aged about 52 years … Appellant/s rd #21-E/B, 3 Stage, Industrial Suburb Behind Chanakya Choultry, Mysuru-570 008 (By Sri.B.Paneesh Kumar, Advocate)

-V/s-

M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance, st #37, 1 Floor, Venjay Edifice, Above Sony World, Opp. to … Respondent/

Hardwick School, JLB Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysuru.

Reptd by its Branch Manager, (Absent)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the order dated

06.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysuru in CC.No.662/2015 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant took an insurance policy bearing No.1117646 i.e. HDFC Unit Young Star plus Policy on 27.7.2007 for a period of 18 years and annual premium is Rs.4.00 lakhs and the sum assured is Rs.1.00 crore. As per the policy scheme the 50% of the premium paid, the Opposite Party would be invested in balanced managed fund and the balance 50% premium would be paid towards growth fund. Upon inception of the policy and till date the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs. The complainant paid the first premium nd of Rs.4.00 lakhs on 16.7.2007 2 premium of Rs.1.00 lakh on 26.7.2008, third premium of Rs.1.00 th lakh on 20.7.2009, 4 premium of Rs.1.00 lakh on 15.7.2010 and the fifth premium of Rs.1.00 lakh on 22.8.2011. The complainant has paid the premiums for first five years continuously without any delay or default. At the time of selling the insurance policy to the complainant, the Opposite Party clearly stated that after three years of payment of insurance premium, the appellant can go in for a holiday i.e. exemption of premium is concerned. Meantime, the complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that his policy is lapsed and it cannot be reinstated. The complainant at that juncture made it clear to the Opposite Party that he was ready and willing to make payment of the premium amount along with the applicable rate of interest on the delayed period. But the Opposite Party did not listen to the requests of the complainant. As per the policy terms and conditions of the policy, the Opposite Party is supposed to give a clear one month’s grace period for payment of the premium towards the policy. However the Opposite Party in hurry terminates the policy of the complainant without giving an opportunity to the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the Opposite Party personally and gave a written representation on 11.9.2012 requesting them to accept the premium and to reinstate the policy. However, the opposite Party turned down request of the complainant and calculated NAV and intimated the complainant to collect Rs.3,60,611/- as against his payment of Rs.8.00 lakhs. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice which was served on the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not consider the request of the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. When the matter was listed for hearing before the District Commission, the D