AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 10. 12. 2007 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa dismissing appeal against the order dated 14. 12. 2006 of a District Forum whereby petitioner and respondent No. 2 were directed to make payment of the premium amount for unutilised period in respect of policy No. 4a271890 to respondent No. 1.
IN nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Respondent No. 1/complainant had purchased a Travel Insurance Policy from the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 through their agent, respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 for undertaking journey to the United States for the period from 19. 4. 2004 to 15. 10. 2004 after paying premium of Rs. 13,991. Respondent No. 1 proceeded to the United States on 19. 4. 2004. However, she returned to Goa on 2. 6. 2004 due to sickness of her mother who ultimately died on 5. 6. 2004. On inquiry by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 as to whether she could get the refund of premium for the unutilized period she was told that she could get it on pro-rata basis only after a new policy is taken. This was indicated by the petitioner in e-mail dated 25. 6. 2004 to respondent No. 2. Along with letter dated 30. 6. 2004, the respondent No. 1 forwarded the relevant documents to the petitioner through respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 obtained a new policy dated 12. 7. 2004. On non-refunding the balance amount despite service of legal notice, respondent No. 1 filed complaint which was contested by both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 by filing separate written versions. Plea taken by the petitioner that the policy was to terminate on the last day or on return to India or 180 days from the commencement of journey, whichever is earlier. Premium paid is not refundable. Correspondence exchanged between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was an internal matter. Pleas taken in the written version by respondent No. 2 need not be referred to as it has not assailed the order of District Forum. Thrust of argument advanced by Mr. D. P. Singh for the petitioner is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to the refund of premium for the unutilized period. E-mail dated 25. 6. 2004 being internal correspondence between the company and agent, the respondent No. 1 cannot take any advantage of what is mentioned therein. Issuance of Travel Insurance Policy for undertaking journey by respondent No. 1 to the United States for the period from 19. 4. 2004 to 15. 10. 2004 by the petitioner is not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 alleged that she returned to Goa on 2. 6. 2004 due to illness of her mother who later on died on 5. 6. 2004 and she went back to United States after purchasing a new policy dated 12. 7. 2004. On entitlement of respondent No. 1 for refund of premium for the unutilized period, e-mail dated 25. 6. 2004 need be referred to. This e-mail was sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 with reference to e-mail dated 23. 6. 2004. Copy of e-mail dated 23. 6. 2004 is at page 22 while that of dated 25. 6. 2004 is at page 23. On being approached by respondent No. 1, e-mail dated 23. 6. 2004 was sent by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. This e-mail would show the respondent No. 1 wanted to know if the petitioner could give her credit for the unutilised period at the time of taking fresh insurance. E-mail dated 25. 6. 2004, omitting immaterial portion, reads thus: "we refer to your e-mail dated 23. 6. 2004 to our office. In keeping with your query we would like to inform you that the client could apply for a refund for the unused days of her old policy. Generally there is no refund of the policy after the first date of validity. However, in case of emergency where refund request was not reported before the first date of validity the following to be the exceptional reason. Exceptions could be as follows: (a) Insured has fallen sick-Insured''s father/mother/wife/children have fallen sick. (b) Death of a family member. For her next trip, client would have to buy a new policy, and make a full payment for the same. Should you require any further assistance please feel free to call us on our 24 hour Toll Free Helpline. 1-600-119966. "
Obviously, case of respondent No. 1 for refund falls within the exceptions. In our view, petitioner cannot wriggle out of the said e-mail on grounds of its being an internal correspondence between the company and agent and/or the policy not providing refund of premium for the unused period. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.