IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 47 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. (RBT) No.31 of 2022 dated

14.10.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Ariyalur]

Friday, the 31^st day of January 2025

1. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Plot No.90-A, Sector 18 Gurgoan, Haryana.

2. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager II Floor, Adyar Bakery Building Sardar Patel Road, Adyar Chennai – 600 020. .. Appellants/

Opposite parties - Vs –

Jitendra Shukla E-4, 6^th Main Road Thiruvalluvar Nagar Thiruvanmiyur Chennai- 600 041. .. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/

Opposite parties : M/s.S. Dhakshnamoorthy Counsel for the Respondent/

Complainant : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar This appeal came before us for final hearing on 26.06.2024 and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated

14.10.2022 passed in C.C. (RBT) No.31 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ariyalur, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The appellants are the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and the respondent is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. The case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Commission, is as follows :-

The complainant availed a Whole Life policy from the opposite parties on 15.07.2022. The proposal was made through Chennai-I Branch of the opposite parties. The policy covered personal accident also. The Policy number then assigned was 225544337, with effect from 15.07.2022 and the sum assured under the policy was Rs.10,00,000/- upon maturity date or death. The complainant is liable to pay the half-yearly premium as below:

Whole life (participating) to age 100 - Rs.13,249.60 Personal Accident Benefit - Rs.351/-

But, presently the premium is paid quarterly. The complainant had availed a loan against the policy and the said loan has also been repaid by him. Due to some technical issues, the loan amount was reflected in the demand of annual premium, though the loan was settled. Hence, in order to solve the issue the opposite parties issued a new policy on the same terms and conditions, assigning the Policy Number as 278704507, with continuity from 15.07.2002. This policy was issued only to remove the technical glitches that were faced by the opposite parties in the policy No.225544337 of the complainant. As per e-mail dated 21.10.2015, the factum of issuance of new policy was confirmed and it has also been stated by the opposite parties that the previous policy No.225544337 stands null and void. On 05.03.2016, when the complainant’s wife visited the Adyar–Chennai branch office of the opposite parties, the Manager Mr.S.K.Singh informed her that the policy No.225544337 had lapsed in the year 2005 itself. This added to the confusion since the complainant had already been issued a new policy, with continuity from the year 2002. On 09.03.2016, the complainant sent a detailed email to the opposite parties mentioning the defective maintenance of the policies. If the policy had lapsed in the year 2005 itself, then the premium would not have been collected by the opposite parties from the complainant for the said lapsed policy. The information that the policy had lapsed from the year 2005 was given to the complainant just two days after delivery of the policy No.278704507 to him, wherein it has been indicated that the policy is continuing. Hence, the complainant was shocked when the opposite party informed that the policy had lapsed from the year 2005. This act of the opposite parties definitely amounts to unfair trade pract