Page 70 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 70

had taken a policy bearing no. 4000426072 called IDBI Federal Insurance Endow-
ment and Money Back Plan during the year June 2012 on payment of Rs.5.00 lakh.
The petitioner had opted to purchase insurance policy in the name of his grandson
named ―Prashant Gupta‖ whereas the respondent/ Opposite party / insurance company
issued the said policy in the name of petitioner‘s granddaughter. The petitioner im-
mediately informed the representative of the respondent insurance company about the
mistake done by the respondent, but the respondent remained silent and evaded the
request of the petitioner continuously. The said documents in respects of grand
daughter‘s name had never been signed by the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter
to the respondent insurance company for cancellation of the policy during July 2012.
The respondent cancelled the policy and remitted Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner‘s
account on 13.02.2013 but not paid the interest for using money for years. Thus a
consumer complaint was filed.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI (District New Delhi)
vide its order dated 13.01.2015 while disposing of the complaint observed as under:
“The opposite party filed reply and also filed an application for settlement on
15.07.2014 to pay 9% interest from the date of refund, i.e., 15.02.2013 interest
plus Rs.15,000/- as litigation and deficiency but the opposite party failed to re-
spond.
In the light of the settlement application moved by the OP, we allow the appli-
cation and direct the OP to pay interest @ 9% from 15.02.2013 till payment on
the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already paid.”
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent/ opposite party
filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order
dated 16.03.2016 while accepting the appeal gave the following observations:
“2. OP filed an application for settlement on 15.07.2014 and offered to pay
interest @ 9% up to the date of refund. On the basis of said application, the Dis-
trict Forum directed OP to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of refund,
i.e., 15.02.2013.
3. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
At the very outset, it is mentioned that we are not clear from where the District
Forum has picked up the date as 15.02.2013 from which date interest is to be
paid. It appears that District Forum wanted to convey that it has picked up the
same from the application for settlement moved by the OP. Similarly, the im-
pugned order shows that application of OP purported to pay Rs.15,000/- as litiga-
tion charges. That is again missing in application for settlement copy of which is
placed at page 114 of the appeal.
4. Again it does not make any sense that interest has to be paid from
15.02.2013. Premium was paid on 30.05.2012, complainant sought cancellation
on 30.07.2012 and OP refunded the amount on 15.02.2013. Again it does not
make any sense that interest was to be paid till amount of Rs.5.00 lakh already
paid, if the amount has already been paid, there was no question of paying inter-
est after payment.
5. The contention of the counsel for appellant that neither evidence was
taken nor arguments were heard is being mentioned for being rejected only. When
OP has moved an application for settlement, there remained no need of evidence

INDEX