Page 71 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 71

and arguments.
6. The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant is an old citizen
of 90 years of age and was harassed by OP from July 2012 to 2013 when com-
plaint was filed. We are at a loss to appreciate the plea. OP had already refunded
the amount on 15.12.2013. Now, the complainant is pursuing with the case just to
extract money in the shape of compensation.
7. What appears to be just is directing OP to pay interest from 30.07.2012
to 15.12.2013 @ 9% per annum on Rs.5.00 lakh which was the premium paid by
the complainant?
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is
modified to the effect that appellant shall pay interest to the respondent on Rs.5.00
lakh @ 9% per annum from 30.07.2012 to 15.12.2013. The order shall be com-
plied within 30 days filing which OP will be liable to face coercive action under
section 25/27 Consumer Protection Act.”
Thereafter the date was corrected vide order dated 13.05.2010 from 15.12.2013 to
15.02.2013.
Hence, the present revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who was present along
with the petitioner in person. He contended that the respondent had fraudulently is-
sued the policy in the name of his grand-daughter and illegally used the premium of
Rs.5.00 lakh. However, later they refunded the policy premium of Rs.5.00 lakh after
eight months and twelve days on 15.02.2013. He had asked for interest @ 9% on
Rs.5.00 lakh for the intervening period but the respondent ignored the request. The
amount of Rs.5.00 lakh was refunded on 15.02.2013 without any interest. As per the
State Commission‘s order he has been awarded 9% interest from 30.07.2012 to
15.02.2013 the date on which Rs.5.00 lakh was refunded to him instead of from
30.05.2012 the date on which he paid the premium.
I have gone through the proposal form placed on record. It is clear from the
proposal form that the name of Prashant Gupta has been struck off and the name of
Anisha Gupta has been added and Mr R K Gupta has signed the form to verify the
correction. The plea of the counsel that the correction was made at the instance of the
respondent is belied by the fact that even against column no. 4 for educational qualifi-
th
cations it has been shown as 10 Pass. Prashant was a five year old and could not be
th
10 pass. The proposal form was dated 30.05.2012 and the signature at the end of the
proposal form was matching as against the signature against the corrections made at
page 1 of the proposal form. The policy was issued on 29.06.2012. As per the facts on
record, the petitioner had received the policy no. 4000426072 on 05.07.2012 and the
fifteen days free look period lapsed on 27.07.2012. However, it was only vide letter
dated 30.07.2012 received by the Company on 03.08.2012, that the petitioner for the
first time raised the objection with regard to the name.
The respondents vide their letter dated 24.08.2012 had sent a letter to Ms An-
isha Gupta stating as under:
―To
Ms Anisha Gupta
385 Narmada Apartment
Alaknanda

INDEX