Page 32 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 32

filing of the written version amounts to an admission of the allegations made by the
complainant in the consumer complaint. The petitioners have not been able to explain
any reason as to why they did not file their written version before the District Forum,
despite being given an opportunity to do so.

8. The next issue that merits consideration is whether the surrender value of the
policy could be given to the complainant on the basis of the IRDA circular dated
21.12.2005, or the new circular issued in the year 2010. It has been observed by the
State Commission that the IRDA (treatment of discontinued link insurance policies)
Regulations 2010 were notified on 01.07.2010, whereas the policy was discontinued
in the year 2011 and hence, the cause of action occurred to the complainant in March,
2011, which was much after the said regulations came into force. The State Commis-
sion also observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation
enacted with a view to protect the interests of the consumer. Hence, wherever two
interpretations are possible, the interpretation beneficial to the consumer, should be
adopted. A harmonious construction of regulations 1(2) and 2(1)(iv) of 2010 regula-
tions would show that these are applicable in the case of policies, discontinued after
coming into force of such regulations. I have no reason to disagree with the findings
given by the State Commission that the regulations of 2010 are applicable in the pre-
sent case and hence, the surrender value is to be determined as per the terms and con-
ditions in the 2010 regulations. A maximum amount of Rs. 6,000/- is deductible in
this case from the amount of premium paid, meaning thereby that the complainant is
entitled to get a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the Insurance Company as surrender value.
Since the amount of Rs. 5,000/- already stood paid to the customer, a further sum of
Rs. 39,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/OP to the complainant alongwith interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation as awarded by the State Commis-
sion.

9. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revi-
sion petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

INDEX