BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 628 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.378/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Second Floor, Surabhi Arcade Street Koti, Hyderabad – 500 001.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 And:

1. R.B.Khanna, S/o Late R.D.Khanna, Aged about 60 years, Occ.: Asst. Sub Inspector of Police (Retd.,), R/o H.No.23-5-848, Nagul Chintha, Shah-Ali-Bunda, Hyderabad -65.

………Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. The General Manager, Consumers Affairs Department, Insurance Regulatory & Development of India (IRDA), Sy. No.115/1, Financial Dist., Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

……..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party).

Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 :

M/s.K.R.L.Sarma Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : Party-in-Person Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2:

Sri P. Sardar Singh Legal Officer HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NJ)

HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER – (NJ)

WEDNESDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX **********

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.