STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 01.06.2022 Date of Final Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026 SC/5/A/83/2022 Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Office at 11^th & 12^th Floor, DLF Square Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon (Haryana)

Through Sr. Executive (Through: Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate)

….Appellant VERSUS Sh. Ramphal Singh S/o Sh. Mahendra Pal R/o 124, 3^rd Phase BHEL, Shivalik Nagar Near Community Center – 2, Haridwar 249403 (U.K.)

(Through: Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate)

…. Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated

27.04.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2021 styled as Sh. Ramphal Singh Vs. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,26,421.13ps. together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint, i.e. 22.01.2021 till final payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fees to the complainant, within one month from the date of judgment and order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant had purchased a policy ‘Max Life Monthly Income Advantage Plan’ bearing policy No. 127588374 from the opposite party No. 1 on dated 30.08.2016 with an annual premium of Rs. 55,752.66ps. for a period of 12 years and the maturity of which was of 01.08.2038. The other opposite parties are associated with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs. 2,79,546.98ps. towards five annual installments. However, upon seeking refund of total premium paid, only Rs. 1,53,125.85ps. was credited to his bank account on dated 20.10.2020, while an amount of Rs. 1,26,421.13ps. was deducted without authorization. Aggrieved by this, the complainant claimed that this amount was deducted arbitrarily and alleged deficiency in service leading him to file present complaint before the District Commission.

3. The opposite parties in their written statement admitted issuance of policy in question, but contended that the deduction of Rs. 1,26,421.13ps. was effected strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy in question and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence and material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 27.04.2022 and allowed the complaint in above terms.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal as appellant alleging that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the facts on record, evidence adduced and settled principle of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent – complainant had allowed 15 days free look period to lapse, thereafter voluntarily continued the policy, thereby becoming bound by its terms and conditions. It was further pleaded that the Commission below has erred in over-looking the fact that the surrender value was duly paid strictly in accordance with contractual provisions upon surrender of policy, thereby the insurer fully discharged its liability. The finding of deficiency in service is thus erroneous, as alleged deduction was not arbitrary, but was done in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy in question. The District Commission ignored the binding contractual provisions and material evidence available on record including annexure ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ and instead proceed on unsubstantiated assertions of the respondent thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. The award of Rs. 1