PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER 1. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. This appeal arises from the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 11 of 2014 whereby the complaint of the complainant is dismissed and therefore the aggrieved complainant is before us in this first appeal. The appellant-complainant obtained a Met Smart Premier Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy from the respondent Insurer by submitting a proposal form dated 25.06.2009. The policy was issued on 27.07.2009. The sum assured under the policy Rs. 4 crores and annual premium is Rs. 20 lakh. The policy has maturity date 26.06.2075. As per the terms and conditions of the policy and as noted by the State Commission in its order, the policy clause 11(D) provides for the surrender charges and clause 16 provides for a mechanism of partial withdrawal benefit. The complainant paid 2 further annual premium due but did not pay the fourth premium due on 26.06.2012 and as per the reply filed by the respondent in State Commission, the policy was moved to premium discontinuance status. The complainant, after having completed 3 years of the policy period and having paid Rs.60 lakhs of premium, wanted the benefit of partial withdrawal under clause 16 and accordingly made an application to the insurer on 28.12.2012 for withdrawal of Rs. 35 lakhs. As per the complainant, the fund value as on the date of the application was Rs. 60 lakhs. As per the complainant's understanding, as provided in clause 11(D), after deducting only 70% of the first year premium, which is Rs.14 lakhs, the balance amount of premia paid, which will come to Rs.46 lakhs, is the eligible amount for such partial withdrawal from which he wanted only Rs.35 lakhs. As replied by the respondent in State Commission, the eligible amount as per the policy conditions was Rs.25.5 lakhs which was informed telephonically to the complainant who finally agreed for an amount of Rs.23 lakhs which was paid through NEFT on 11.01.2013. Thereafter the complainant made a grievance regarding the quantum of eligible partial withdrawal through IRDA as also by a direct letter, which also were duly replied fully explaining the computation and the basis thereof vide communication of the insurer dated 15.02.2013 and 01.04.2013. As per this explanation provided by the insurer “Partial withdrawal amount = Existing Fund Value - (One annualized premium + Surrender Value).” Subsequently, when the fund value to the credit of the appellant fell below one annualized premium on 27.04.2013, the complainant received a letter of intimation from the insurer alongwith a cheque of Rs.18,19,957.84/- towards refund of the foreclosure amount in the complainant’s account in terms of clause 21. The complainant was aggrieved on account of such illegal closure of policy by the respondent and alleged arbitrary short-computation of eligible partial withdrawal sum and therefore, the complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission, Aurangabad Bench alleging deficient service was filed on 12.06.2014. The State Commission after considering the reply of the respondent and evidence on record and after minutely examining relevant terms and conditions of the policy, came to the conclusion that the insurer has duly applied and explained the partial withdrawal formula as provided under the terms and conditions of the policy. The State Commission was also satisfied, on the basis of clause 21 Contract Termination in the terms and conditions of the policy, that the contract of insurance was validly terminated by way of payment of due foreclosure amount by the insurer because the fund value fell below the threshold provided under clause 21. Therefore in the absence of subsisting consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and the insurer, no finding of deficient service can be arrived at or is necessary. The operative portion is reproduce as under: “9. It is the contention of the complainant that he had applied for policy on 25.06.2009 and said policy by name Met Smart Premium having coverage of Rs.4,00,00,000/- issued on 2ndJuly of 2009. It is stated by complainant that on 28.12.2012 complainant made request for giving benefit of the scheme of partial withdrawal as per clause-16 of the policy. It is the contention of complainant that as per the calculation made by him in respect of partial withdrawal he is entitled to receive Rs.35,00,000/- and therefore he requested insurance company to pay the said amount. While perusing the record it reveals that immediately after receipt of the complaint and grievance about the partial withdrawal benefit from the complainant said formula was explained to the complainant by the insurance company as well as Assistant Manager, Grievance Redressal Team, Grievance Redressal Officer and by Dy. Director IRDA by e-mail. As per the communication made by the opponent insurance company the / partial withdrawal amount would be eligible as mentioned below: Partial withdrawal amount = Existing Fund Value - (One annualized premium + Surrender Value)." Therefore as per the formula applied by insurance company complainant is entitled to partial withdrawal benefit of Rs.23,00,000/- only and said amount was refunded to the complainant on 11.01.2013 itself. It has also admitted by the complainant that said amount was withdrawn by the complainant. The letter written by opponent insurance company dated 30.04.2013 clearly mentioned that " We have received the partial withdrawal request for INR 35 Lacs on 28.12.2012. On the request received date you were eligible for a partial withdrawal amount of INR 25.50 Lacs. As per our process we made a retention call and you have given your consent to process the request for INR 23 Lacs during the call. After your confirmation the amount was credited to your bank account on 11.01.2013 Vide UTR Number CITIH13011403726." 10. In our view, complainant was also informed by the said letter that even if he is not satisfied with formula he can approach the higher authority. Thereafter many time complainant was informed that the formula adopted by the insurance company was proper and correct. In our view, complainant did not appreciate the formula of partial withdrawal benefit in correct manner, and therefore he made the grievance. In our view, complainant is not entitled to get the partial withdrawal benefit. We are therefore answering the issue No.1 in negative. 11. While perusing the record we find that the complainant had obtained the policy and at the time of policy terms and conditions of the policy were also supplied to the complainant. After receipt of request of the complainant for partial withdrawal benefit and the amount claimed by the complainant opponent insurance company immediately informed him the formula which can be adopted in respect of his request and accordingly after calculating his request amount of Rs.23,00,000/- was offered to which complainant consented and also accepted the said amount. In our view, therefore complainant is estopped from claiming further amount as he had accepted Rs.23,00,000/- without any protest. It has also came on record that after calculating the partial withdrawal benefit and after refunding the same amount policy was also foreclosed. In our view, therefore complainant is not consumer of the respondent insurance company at the time of filing of complaint. It has also come on record that immediately after receipt of the grievance by the complainant about the calculation said was explained to him by various authorities of the insurance company. In our view therefore the respondent insurance company is not at all liable for any deficiency in service. The authorities cited by Adv. Muklhedkar are not helpful to him as facts in those matters are totally different.” 2. The above order of the State Commission has been challenged by the appellant/Complainant by raising inter alia the following main grounds/contentions: A. The Hon'ble State Commission erred in failing to appreciate the provisions under Clauses 11(D) and 16 of the Policy, which clearly entitled the Appellant to a partial withdrawal benefit of ₹35,00,000. B. The Hon'ble State Commission erred by not addressing the arbitrary and illegal actions of the respondent Insurance Company, which unilaterally terminated/foreclosed the Appellant’s account without adhering to the provisions of Clause 21 regarding contract termination. C. The State Commission erred in dismissing the complainant in limine by concluding that the appellant accepted the settlement offered by the insurer by accepting the amount and signing the discharge voucher when the appellant had immediately intimated that the acceptance was on account without prejudice. 3. We have heard the counsels and carefully perused the record. We, finding no error or illegality in its order, fully endorse the view taken by the State Commission. Apart from agreeing with the well founded and policy conditions based reasoning of the State Commission as reproduced above, we additionally note that the Complainant’s expectation or assumption of fund value as on the date of his request for partial withdrawal itself is baseless. As provided in the policy, only a part of the amount of the premium paid gets invested in the market-based fund from which a withdrawable amount as per clause 16 can be drawn. The administrative and mortality charges for life cover would also reduce the amount available for investing in market-linked fund. There is no basis for the complainant to assume therefore that the fund value on the date of application for withdrawal is or should be Rs. 60 lacs and that therefore he could withdraw 46 lacs as provided under clause 11(D). Subsequently, the complainant also agreed and accepted Rs. 23 lacs. The insurer also duly explained the formula. Similarly, when the fund value went below the threshold minimum stipulated amount, as per clause 21, the policy terminated and the contract ended. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: 11(D) Surrender Charge: No surrender is permitted during the first three years of the policy. After the first three policy years, the following surrender charge is applicable. 
The surrender charge would be deducted from the Unit Linked Funds in proportion to respective Fund Values available In each of the subscribed Unit Linked Funds as on the due date of deduction. “16. Partial Withdrawal Benefit For the purpose of partial withdrawals, all the units in the account would be segregated as Withdrawable part and Non-withdraw able part. Any top-up premiums paid would be classified as Non-Withdraw able part for three years from the date of payment. - You can make a request for a partial withdrawal in writing subject to:
- Three years have elapsed from the issue date of the policy
- Insured completing 18 years of age
- The amount requested is less than the surrender value of the withdrawable part.
- Minimum amount retained in the account after withdrawal being annualized Premium.
The partial withdrawal amount will be paid by encashing units from the Surrender Value of the withdrawal part as detailed in the surrender provisions after deducting the partial withdrawal part as detailed in the surrender provisions after deducting the partial withdrawal charges as mentioned in clause 11(H). The minimum amount for partial withdrawal is Rs.s,ooo/-. However the Company may revise this minimum amount from time to time subject to prior clearance from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority for the purpose of Withdrawal Benefit, the Fund Value in the Unit Account will be determined using the Net Asset Value on the corresponding Valuation Date falling on or immediately after the Date of Receipt of Written Request at our designated office. The rules in this regard are as follows: If the request is received before 15:00 hrs on a business/working day, the corresponding valuation date is the same business/working day. If the request is received after 15:00 hrs on a business/working day, the corresponding valuation date is the next business/working day The valuation is done on a daily basis. However if there is no valuation done on a business/working day due to market closer; then the above mentioned valuation date is the date when the next valuation is done. In exceptional circumstances such as unusually high volume of sale of investments within a short period, market conditions and political and economic force majeure, the Company may, in its sole discretion, defer the partial withdrawal from the Policy for a period not exceeding six months from the date of application. The determination of the existence of exceptional circumstances for the purposes of the section and the Value of Units in the Unit Account in such a circumstance shall be in the sole judgment of the Company (with prior clearance from Insurance Regulatory an Development Authority. 21, Contract Termination If the policy is lapsed during the first three policy years and not reinstated within two years fro the date of such lapse as mentioned in clause 19, the policy would be terminated by paying the surrender value as on the date of expiry of two years to you. The policy would also be terminated if the fund value runs out of money for charges deduction during the first three years. After the first three policy years, if the surrender value falls below the Annualized Premium at any point of time, the policy would he terminated by paying the surrender value as on that date to you," 4. Thus, there is no subsisting relationship of service provider-consumer between the parties when the complaint was filed because the contract of insurance stood terminated within the policy terms. Even assuming that the complainant could still agitate against deficient service suffered by him during the period of contract, factually there is no error or deficient service from insurer when the insurer has acted strictly within the terms of the policy with regard to both the grievances and allowed the partial withdrawal and terminated the policy after refunding surrender amount. Accordingly, we find no ground or reason to interfere with decisions of the insurer and of the State Commission in finding no error in the decisions of the insurer. There is no deficiency in service from the insurer and no error or illegality in State Commission’s Order. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER The Appeal no. 857 of 2015 is dismissed. | 
