Taken up through video conferencing.In both Revision Petitions, the same Order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Commission has been impugned; both Petitions are being disposed of together.1. The Petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 12.12.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 106 of 2018 and F.A. No. 576 of 2018 arising out of the Order dated 19.12.2017 in C.C. No. 106 of 2016 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.The Petitioners herein, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Co.'.The Respondent herein, Sat Narayan Gupta, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'.2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Insurance Co.Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 19.12.2017 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Commission and the Petitions.3. The dispute relates to refund of the premia paid by the Complainant to the Insurance Co. along with interest / compensation.4. The District Forum, vide its Order dated 19.12.2017, allowed the Complaint.For ready appreciation, extracts from the appraisal made by the District Forum are reproduced below:6. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that OP No. 1 approached the complainant and induced him by stating insurance policy of the OP is very profitable and if the complainant purchases their policy, then the complainant will get huge benefits and policy will be for five years and complainant will have to pay premium of Rs.50,000/- per year only for five years and after five years, the complainant will get huge profits, bonus and interest on the deposited amount. It is further contended that when the complainant received the policy cover note and came to know about the fact that in the said documents the period of policy is not five years, rather it is 15 years, whereas the complainant never purchased the said policy for the term of 15 years, so the complainant made a representation and requested the Ops for withdrawing/cancelling the policy and requested to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest.7. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the Ops is that in accordance with clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002, every policy document sent by the complainant to the policy holder is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under "Free Look Period" but the life assured never approached the company for any discrepancy made in the application or any grievance relating to the policy or its terms and conditions during free look period, implying that the life assured had agreed to the contents in the application form. This argument of learned counsel for the Ops has no merit at all because the Ops in their written statement themselves admitted that life assured/proposer was to make the yearly installments of Rs.25,000/-, while from the perusal of First Premium Receipt Ex. C6, it is made out that the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- each for five years being the yearly installment including service tax and this document also pertains to the Ops. Moreover, the complainant also came to know this fact that the policy is 15 years when the complainant received the policy cover note from the Ops. So, complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- refunded from the Ops.8. In view of the above said discussion, the complaint of the complainants is allowed and the Ops are directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- being the amount of five installments to the complainant. The order be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which the penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be initiated against the Ops and in that case the complainant shall be entitled simple interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of order till its payment. File be consigned to record after due compliance.(emphasis supplied)5. In essence, the District Forum ordered refund of the premia (Rs. 2.50 lakh), admittedly paid by the Complainant to the Insurance Co., along with interest (@ 6% per annum) from the date of its Order till the actual payment.6. The Insurance Co. filed Appeal, being F.A. No. 106 of 2018, before the State Commission for setting aside the Order of the District Forum; the Complainant filed Appeal, being F.A. No. 576 of 2018, for enhancement in compensation.The State Commission disposed of both Appeals vide its common Order dated 12.12.2019.For ready appreciation, extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:6. As a matter of fact, the basic and the sole question, which arises for adjudication for this Commission is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to modify the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned District Forum, granting interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the order till making the entire payment. In the cross-appeal, it has been emphasised that not only the question of interest, the appellant/complainant being a Senior Citizen, he may be awarded suitable compensation.7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and since in both the appeals, the sole and basic point for adjudication for this Commission is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to award the interest over and above 6% per annum. In the interest of justice, equity and keeping in view of the fact that the complainant is a Senior Citizen, it would be most appropriate, if the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% to 12% per annum along with the amount of the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The total amount assessed by this Commission found payable to the complainant/appellant would be Rs.2,50,000/-, which includes the amount of the compensation. However, the amount of the interest would be calculated on the surrender value from the date of passing of the order of the learned District Forum. With these observations, both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.(emphasis supplied)8. The State Commission has passed a speaking, reasoned Order; essentially, it has concurred with findings of the District Forum, but has modified the Award.In the facts of the case, the Award made by the State Commis
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sion, as contained in para 7 of its Order of 12.12.2019 (reproduced in para 6. above), appears just and equitable.No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence is visible; no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible; interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted.9. The Revision Petitions No. 352 of 2020 and No. 353 of 2020, being bereft of merit, are dismissed. The State Commission's Order of 12.12.2019 is confirmed. The Award firmed-up by the State Commission is sustained.10. The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to the Insurance Co., the Complainant and the District Forum within three days from today.'Dasti', in addition.