Complaint in brief is that  the complainant is a policy holder of the opposite party.  His policy number is 796938694.  He paid initial premium of Rs. 30,459/- (Rupees Thirty thousand  four hundred and fifty nine only) on  10-01-2011.  Complainant states  that he is entitled for  huge  amount as per the offer of the opposite party.  Due to health reason and economic stringency complainant could not  proceed with policy.  Complainant undergone surgery and other treatment during  the period and so he  demanded  refund of the  premium  amount.  But opposite party did not refund the amount . Complainant pray for refund  of premium amount  with compensation  of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakh only).

             On admission  of complaint  issued  notice to opposite party and on receipt  of notice opposite party entered appearance  and filed detailed version.  Opposite party contented  that complaint is not  maintainable under the Consumer Protection  Act and the question  involved in the complaint is a   contractual obligation  and  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Opposite party admit that they issued policy No.796938694 on 10-01-2011 and  they have received half yearly premium  at the rate of  Rs.30,459/-(Rupees Thirty thousand four hundred and fifty nine only),  but on 7^th month July premium become due.   The policy issued is the plan 179 New Bima Gold of LIC after fully  understanding terms and conditions regarding  the policy.  According to opposite party as per  policy condition No. 2 , policy lapses, if the premium is not paid before the expiry grace period of  one month  not less than 30 days. Complainant  in this complaint  not remitted  the amount on 07/11 or on 10/08/2011.  So the policy stand lapsed.  The policy  condition No.4 regarding forfeiture regulation states  that if at least  3 full years premium have been paid in respect of the policy  and subsequent  premium not duly paid,  policy shall be  void after expiry  of 2 years of   Auto cover  period from due date of unpaid  premium shall subsist as paid  up policy.   Opposite party  contended  that premium of this policy are not remitted for 3 years, so does not acquire any  paid up value.  According to opposite party, this is the totally lapsed policy and no amount is liable to be paid to the life assured as per the policy.  Policy condition No. 3 according to opposite party it is stated that the life assured can revive the policy during within 5 years from the   first unpaid premium.  Opposite party contented that the policy holder not acquired any unpaid value, not paid any amount after first installment and so all claims to any benefit in view shall cease.  So the question of mental agony, hard ship does not arise and no benefit is entitled as prayed.

            Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits  in lieu of evidence.  Ext. A1  policy copy marked on the side  complainant.   Ext. B1 to B3   marked on the side of opposite party.   Ext.B1 is the policy copy , Ext.B2 is the status report of the policy and Ext.B3 is the copy of proposal form. 

      Heard both side  and following points consider deciding the complaint. 

1. Whether complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether  complainant is entitled to the refund of the premium amount.
3. Reliefs and cost.

Point No.1

           Complainant is a policyholder of opposite party and he demand for the refund of the premium amount  which he has paid.  It can be seen that the opposite party is providing service  which is under the purview of  definition of  Consumer Protection Act 1986.  So the contention of opposite party will not lie that the dispute does not come under  the Consumer Protection Act.

Point No.2 &3

            The fact that  the complainant is the policy holder of opposite party  is admitted one.  It is also correct to say that he paid only the  initial  policy premium  amount of Rs.30,459/-(Rupees Thirty thousand  four hundred and fifty nine only) Complainant could not pay the  premium  due to  financial stringency and ailment. So the issue before the Forum is to find out whether the complainant is entitled to  refund of the premium already paid by him.

            The insurance policy is a  creation of contract  between the policy holder and the insurance company.  The parties are bound by the terms of the contract.  The violation of condition of contract create liabilities  to each other.  The terms  and the conditions of the policy has narrated in detail in Ext. A1 and B1.  Opposite party has explained   why they denied the request of complainant to refund the premium amount mentioned the   policy conditions of  No.4 and 3.  According to opposite party  as per 2^nd condition of policy is that the premium is not remitted within grace period of one month the policy lapses.  Policy Condition No.4  states that,  if premium is not paid   for at least 3 full years, policy does not acquire any paid up value that means policy totally lapses and no amount is liable to be paid  to the life assured as per the policy,  3^rd policy condition is that  the life assured can revive the policy within 5 years from the first unpaid premium,  if it is not revived  within that time as per the policy condition nothing is payable under the policy.

             The opposite party has got specific contention  in Para  5 of the affidavit that the complainant has taken the policy under plan 179  New Bima Gold of LIC after fully understanding the terms and conditions regarding this policy. But there is no document to show that the complainant was aware of the conditions laid in  Para 3 , 4 and 5 .    There is  no signature of the complainant  in policy condition  to uphold  the contention of the opposite party.  Only on a microscopic examination one can read the policy copy.  Normally a laymen   like complainant is not able to understand the contentions  of  such documents.   As per documents it is seen   that complainant has signed in proposal form  but not in policy condition. So a condition which is not acknowledged  or accepted by the parties cannot be   enforced  against him. 

             In this complaint, complainant has taken  a policy  from the opposite party.  But he could not  continue the  payment of premium due to ailment and the financial shortage.  So it is not good  to blame  the complainant for non remitting the premium.   It is  well known idea  that LIC is established  as part of  social security measures.  That cannot be a  trap  on common people.   The concerned authority are bound to take care of  these  sort of  unilateral  conditions . 

             In the light of  above facts  we are inclined to allow the complaint as follows.

             Opposite party is directed to the refund of the premium amount of Rs. 30,459/-(Rupees Thirty thousand four hundred and fifty nine only) with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order,   failing which  complainant is  entitled  12%   interest  on Rs.30,459/-(Rupees Thirty thousand four hundred and fifty nine only) from the date of this complaint.