DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER 1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 24.10.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 47 of 2012, whereby the complaint was allowed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘bank’) but appearance not marked and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 24.10.2017 and the memorandum of appeal. 3. The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 99 days. In the interest of justice and considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2008, the complainant, on being allured by the representative of the insurance company that if the complainants deposits certain amount of money with the insurance company for a term of three years under a specific policy, immediately after expiry of the tenure of such term, an amount equivalent to the double of the amount deposited would be refunded, obtained an insurance policy for sum insured of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. It is alleged that the policy documents including terms and conditions thereof were not supplied to the complainants. It is further alleged that on expiry of three years, when the complainants demanded the maturity amount, the insurance company refused to pay the maturity value and it was informed to them that the policy in question was for a tenure of 79 years and the complainants were required to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- each year for a term of five years. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainants were deliberately misled and misguided by the insurance company which amounted to unfair trade practice. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission. 6. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 24.10.2017 allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay the premium amount after deducting 10% of the said amount as processing charges, along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. 7. Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the insurance company filed the instant appeal before this Commission. 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the insured had admittedly filled and signed the proposal form dated 04.01.2008 wherein the features of the instant policy were clearly stated i.e. the policy was for the term of 79 years with sum assured for Rs. 2,50,00,000/- against annual premium of Rs.10 lakh payable for 05 years and the maturity date of 18.02.2087 was clearly mentioned on the policy information page. He has further argued that the insured raised no objection pertaining to the terms of the said policy in the free look period i.e. 15 days of receiving the policy document as per terms of the policy dated 18.02.2008. It was further argued that since the complainant failed to pay the premium towards the policy in the year 2009, the policy stood lapsed and the insurance company is liable to only pay a surrender value of the policy i.e. Rs.1,79,518.91 and as per the insurance company, the claim of the insured that it was a misbriefing and that she was not aware of the terms of the policy issued, is an afterthought. Therefore, the insurance company has assailed the State Commission’s Order as being self-contradictory and needs to be set aside. It was also argued that the policy is more of life term insurance policy and it has to be understood that it does not have any ongoing benefits and that all policies are issued after approval of the IRDA, therefore, there cannot be any allegation of unfair trade practice against the insurance company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 9. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Naresh bhai Rathod, civil appeal no. 4261 of 2019, decided on 24.04.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the allegation that the insured had merely signed the proposal form, which had been filed up by an agent (similar facts as this case), it was held that “the arguments of the respondent that the signature of the assured on the form were taken without explaining the details cannot be accepted.” 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the terms of the policy made it an absurd policy, (almost a near impossibility) and that it was only in March 2011 when the complainant learnt for the first time that the tenure of the policy is 79 years and that an amount of Rs. 10 lakh has to be deposited for a period of five years. It was further argued that she was mis-briefed and the transaction was carried in a hurried manner without giving the insured time to evaluate the terms and conditions. 11. The question which falls for our consideration is as to whether there is any unfair trade practice adopted by the insurance company in issuing the insurance policy. 12. It is an admitted fact that the policy was sold to a student, who was about 21 years of age, for a period of 79 years. On the date of the maturity of the policy, the policy holder would turn 100. As regards the point that it was like a life insurance policy, the policy document defines the policy as under : “Your Basic Policy is known as InvestAssure Gold. It is a non-participating Regular Premium Unit Linked Insurance Plan which matures on the date indicated on the Policy Information Page.” 13. The document at no point of time describes the policy to be akin to a life insurance policy. On the other hand, it is a Unit Linked Insurance plan where the loyalty units are added to the funds on every 5th year of the policy. Further, clause (1) regarding maturity benefit states “If the Insured is then alive on the Maturity Date, we will pay to the Policyholder the sum of Regular Premium Fund Value and Top-Up Fund Value of this Policy at the applicable Unit Price….”. Further as per clause (5) of the policy, change of plan is not allowed. 14. An unfair trade practice has been defined in Section 2(r)(1)(vi) of the Act 1986, which is as under:- “Unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:- (1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, - (vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services; 15. In Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 241, while discussing the term ‘service’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted the decision of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 stating as follows: …. A scrutiny of various definitions such as ‘consumer‘, ‘service‘, ‘trader‘, ‘unfair trade practice‘ indicates that legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the Act. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one, explanatory and the other explanatory. The explanatory or the main part itself uses expressions of wide amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep, then its ambit is widened to such things which otherwise would have been beyond its natural import. It has been approved by this Court in Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons [(1991) 3 SCC 617] ; CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad [(1971) 3 SCC 550] and State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [AIR 1960 SC 610 : (1960) 2 SCR 866 : (1960) 1 LLJ 251] . The provisions of the Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment” 16. Keeping in view the above, in our view, issuing an insurance policy to a student of 21 years of student, wherein she puts Rs. 50 lakh over a period of five years and then provide a maturity date of when she will turn 100 years, is squarely covered by this clause because there is no benefit or usefulness that will accrue to the insured in a policy of such terms. In our view, the terms of the insurance policy amounts to unfair trade practice because there is no use or benefit of the policy to the policy holder during his or her life time and it is not a life insurance policy. The ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Naresh bhai Rathod (supra) does not provide any help to the insurance company because the facts of that case are altogether different. In that case issue of non-disclosure of material fact in the proposal form was dealt with and not the issue of unfair trade practice as in the present case. 17. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the State Commission’s findings of unlawful trade practice on the part of the insurance company and the same is upheld. The insurance company is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks. 18. The appeal is dismissed. All pending I.A.s stand disposed of. | 
