**********

Order:

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party No.1, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, dated 30.05.2022 in CC 378/2020 and prays this Commission to allow the appeal with costs and may be pleased to pass such other order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a retired Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Hyderabad City Police and availed a Jeevan Saral Policy vide No. 640681707. The policy commenced on 08.02.2010 and the monthly premium of Rs.1,031/- was directly deducted from his salary through ECS. He paid regularly for 02 years and 11 months, thereafter he became sick and also met with an accident in the year 2014 and was admitted in Care Hospital, Nampally. He was diagnosed as a case of ACS and was advised to undergo mitral valve replacement and underwent treatment in the ensuing years. As he was continuously unwell, the payment of monthly premium was discontinued and there was no intimation for revival of policy. He visited the opposite party branch office on 05.09.2019 to enquire about the status of his policy and also submitted a petition to the Branch Manager. He received a letter from the opposite party on 17.10.2019 stating that the policy acquires paid-up value only on payment of 03 years premium and further stated that the policy could not be surrendered nor the premiums be refunded. The present complaint is filed seeking a refund of amounts paid by him along with interest from the respective dates of payment. Since, the opposite party has not responded and his representations to their grievance redressal Cell have not provided any relief, he has approached the Consumer Commission for equity and justice.

4. The opposite party No.1 filed their written version admitting to the fact that the complainant herein availed an ordinary Jeevan Saral Policy bearing No.640681707 for a sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. Under the plan and term, the monthly mode of payment of premium of Rs.1,031/- was under ECS mode. Date of commencement of policy was 08.02.2010 and date of maturity 02/2032. The complainant appointed his wife Smt. Manju Khanna, as his nominee for the policy. The complainant paid policy premiums only for a period of 02 years and 11 months i.e. 35 monthly installments. He enjoyed the policy cover during this period i.e. from the policy inception to 12/2012, therefore, he cannot claim the paid premiums as the policy was in a lapse condition. The policy holder/complainant approached their Branch office on 05.09.2019 and submitted his complaint. After noticing the averments, the Branch Office replied vide letter dated 17.10.2019 that the policy was in lapsed condition due to non-payment of policy premiums, hence no paid-up value accrued. In this context, they referred to CO Circular Reference ACTL/1934/4, dt.12.02.2004. It is their submission that the complainant is having knowledge about his policy status and the filing of the present complaint for refund of policy premiums is not permissible as per the policy terms and they seek the dismissal of the present complaint.

5. The opposite party No.2 filed their written version stating that the complaint is between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. This opposite party No.2 i.e. IRDAI has nothing to do in this matter. Their role in this regard is only as a regulatory and supervisory authority. The complainant is at liberty to sue Opposite party No.1/insurance company for any deficiency in service, unfair trade practices or breach of terms and conditions. Their role cannot be termed as rendering any service to the complainant as contemplated u/s 2 (42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. They reitera