AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Radha Rani Gupta and Anr., challenging the order dated 15th April 2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (in short the State Commission) in Appeal No. 274 of 2015.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants had life savings of Rs.4,70,000/- and complainant no.1 went to OP no.2 in order to get an FDR issued for the same amount. OP no.1 suggested that the complainant no. 1 should deposit the 50% of the amount into "Savings Assurance Scheme" and for the rest of the amount FDR will be issued. Further, the complainant no. 1 was informed that the deposit to be made in the scheme is for a minimum of 3 years and a premium of Rs,10,000/- will have to be deposited for the subsequent 2 years, on maturity, they could withdraw their deposit with assured benefits. The complainant no. 1 decided to go forward with the proposed plan. OP no.2 issued FDR on 22.04.2009 for 50% i.e. Rs.2,35,000/- and the rest of Rs.2,35,000/- were adjusted in the first premium of the policy with the option of reducing the same to Rs.10,000/- per year as clearly stipulated in clause 1 of the policy and clause 3 of the policy provided that the complainants had the option of withdrawing from the policy after completion of 3 years.
The consultant of OP no.1 asked the complainant no.1 to fill her name on the policy application form and sign the blank form. She was made to sign all the pages of insurance policy document after a year of the policy being issued. She was made to sign some documents in May 2011, when the third and last premium was paid.
In April 2012 she received a phone call asking her to deposit her fourth instalment. Later, when she requested to withdraw from the policy, OP informed that only Rs.5,000/- would be paid and rest Rs.2,50,000/- would be given to OP1. Left with no alternative, the complainant no.1 deposited the fourth instalment of Rs.10,000/- and immediately applied for withdrawal.
On 02.05.2012 the complainant no. 1 applied to retrieve the surrender value from OP no.1. On 18.05.2012 she received a reply stating that surrender value was Rs.75,472/- against a deposit of Rs.2,65,000/-.
On 20.05.2012 the complainant no. 1 informed about this fraud to grievance cell of OP no.1 and specifically mentioned that she took Savings Assurance Policy and not any Life Insurance Policy. Later on, OP no.1 vide letter dated 04.06.2012 rejected the cancellation request of the complainants. Hence, the complainants filed the complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West, New Delhi ('the District Forum').
The District Forum vide its order dated 27.04.2015 has partly allowed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-. District Forum directed OP no.1 to refund a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- after deducting the amount of refund of surrender value in the sum of Rs.75,472/- if already received by the complainant no.1 from OP no.1 and also after deduction of 10% amount from the said amount. The forum also directed that the complainants shall be entitled to the interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount payable from the date of filing the complaint.
The State Commission vide its order dated 15.04.2019 has dismissed the appeal of the complainants for granting compensation and calculation of interest from the date of deposits.
Hence, the complainants have filed the present revision petition before this commission.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the fora below have not granted interest from the date of deposit. The District Forum has awarded interest from the date of filing of the complaint and the same has been confirmed by the State Commission. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum has deducted 10% of the payable amount without any justification. It was further stated that the State Commission has not appreciated the fact that both the opposite parties have misled the complainant and have played fraud on the complainant. Still, the fora below have not granted any compensation for mental agony and harassment. Therefore, the complainant deserves compensation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that in fact, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy document and the complainants only deserve the surrender value, however, the OPs have decided not to challenge the order of the State Commission as the amount is not very large. In fact, even the 9% interest per annum is quite unreasonable looking at the current scenario of interest and it should be reduced. The District Forum has allowed 10% deduction on account of the administrative expenses. The complainant has already been granted more than what is due under the policy and that is why the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainants.
We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined record. It is seen that instead of the surrender value, the District Forum has allowed the complaint on the basis of deficiency in service and has allowed the refund of the amount paid along with interest. The State Commission has also confirmed the order of the District Forum. In insurance matters, the general practice is that a consumer forum awards interest from the date of filing of the complaint and the District Forum has followed this practice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 213 has held the following:-
"6. We however, feel that the interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the National Commission. Consequently, while maintaining the order of the National Commission for payment of Rs.11,69,994 to the appellant as the value of the gunny bags, we direct that this amount shall be paid within two months from today and that too, with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim before the National Commission till the date of actual payment."
From the above, it is clear that in insurance matters, the interest is generally awarded from the date of filing of the complaint. Thus, we do not find any merit in the demand of the complainants that the interest should be granted from the date of deposits.
Coming to the second issue raised by the petitioner that the District Forum should not have deducted 10% for administrative expenses, it is seen that the policy has run for more than 3 years and therefore some administrative expenses have to be given to the insurance company for managing the policy. Thus, we do not find anything unusual in the deduction of 10% as administrative charges.
We also do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents played fraud on the complainants and misrepresented before the complainants about the policy. The complainant has signed all the papers and application form for the policy and therefore, if the complainant has signed these papers without reading or understanding them, the blame cannot be put on the opposite parties. Once a policy is issued, it becomes a concluded contract between the parties and both parties are bound by the provisions and the terms and conditions of the policy. We find that the District Forum has taken a reasonable and balanced decision in allowing the complaint of the complainant on the basis of deficiency in service and the State Commission has also confirmed the same.
The petitioner has also demanded the compensation for mental agony and harassment. The State Commission has considered the question of compensation thoroughly and has reached to the conclusion that it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 acted malafidely and caused any mental harassment or agony to the complainant. The District Forum has already allowed interest at the rate 9% per annum. The interest is also in the form of compensation and therefore no separate compensation for mental agony and harassment is justified.
Based on the above discussion, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 15th April 2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 1825 of 2019 is dismissed.