Page 31 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 31

3. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties,
directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the complainant as surrender value
alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and also to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
While passing the order, the District Forum relied upon the provisions of the Insur-
ance Regulatory and Development Authority (treatment of discontinued link insur-
ance policies) Regulations 2010. Being aggrieved against the order of the District
Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission
and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.04.2013, the
petitioner OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
While passing the order, the State Commission observed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as
surrender value already stood paid to the complainant. She would hence be entitled
for payment of Rs. 44,000/- minus Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 39,000/- only alongwith interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn at-
tention to a copy of letter dated 23.03.2011 sent to the complainant by the petitioner,
in which it was stated that vide circular dated 21.12.2005 of the IRDA, if the policy
was not revived within the minimum revival period mentioned in the contract, the
policy would be terminated at the end of the revival period and the surrender value, if
any, would be payable. The learned counsel argued that the later circular issued in
July, 2010 was not applicable in the present case, because the said circular applied to
the policies taken after 2010. The learned counsel, further, stated that the Revision
Petition nos. 2315 to 2317 of 2013 were decided on the basis of an order passed by
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani & Anr., IV
(2012) CPJ 5 (SC), according to which, the revision petitions were not to be enter-
tained, as only paltry amounts were involved in those cases. The decision in those
cases does not have application in the present case, therefore. The learned counsel
has further drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission dated 03.03.2014
in Revision Petition No. 2356/2013, in which it was held that the regulations of 2010
were not applicable to the policies issued earlier.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the
policy was discontinued in the year 2011, the circular issued by the IRDA in the year
2010 shall be relevant in the present case and the consumer fora below had rightly
placed reliance on the same. The petitioner/OP can deduct a maximum amount of Rs.
6,000/- only from the amount of premium paid by the complainant. The order passed
by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be up-
held.

6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consid-
eration to the arguments advanced before me.

7. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum indicates that an Advo-
cate appeared on behalf of the petitioner/OP before the District Forum and filed his
vakalatnama. However, despite giving opportunities, the said counsel did not file
written version before the District Forum, neither any evidence was filed. The non-

INDEX