1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the petitioners herein seek to assail the order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in F.A. No. 130/2011 (T. Chitra&Ors. Vs. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India &Ors.).  By way of the impugned order, the State Commission upheld the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in C.C. No. 19/2009 wherebythe complaint was dismissed.

2.   Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present Revision Petition are that the 22 complainants opted to invest their money in the Money Plus Scheme, allegedly being lured by the false claims made by the OP No. 3 and OP No.4, agents working under the control of OP Nos. 1 and 2.   It is the case of the complainants that the OP Nos. 3 and 4 caused the complainants to believe that the regular premium scheme would be beneficial for them and believing the words of the OPs, the complainants opted for the same. In this regard, it has been stated by the complainants that since they were not aware of English or Hindi language, they made the investments solely based on the statements made by the OPs. It is the case of the Complainants that after couple of months, they came to know that the allocation charge deductions under the regular premium was to the tune of 26.5% for the 1^st year and 5% for the 2^nd year and 3^rd  year, however under the single premium policy, it was merely 4.25%.  Upon learning this, the complainants approached the OP Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of the regular premium and to transfer their policy to single premium status but their requests fell on deaf hears. Aggrieved by the acts of the OPs, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to refund the premium amount with interest or to convert the policy into single premium and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and for costs.

3. The OP Nos.1 and 2 contested the claim of the complainants on the ground that the latter availed the policies after fully becoming aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that if the complainants were unhappy with the policies, they could have exercised the option of returning the policies within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same. It was further contended that since they failed to exercise the option available under the policies, they are bound by the terms of the policies. OP Nos. 3 and 4 also contested the case on the ground that one Mr. Ayyasamy had induced the complainants to opt for the policy in question and the OPs had no role in alluring the complainants as alleged by them. It was contended that the OPs clearly explained the rules/regulations/policy conditions to the complainants and they opted for the Money PlusPolicy acting on the advice of one Mr. Ayyasamy. It was further contended that the OPs performed no other roles apart from collecting and forwarding the duly filled forms to the Branch Office.

4.      The District Forum vide order dated 25.11.2010 dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was the duty of the complainants to enquire about the conditions incorporated for each and every policy before arriving at a final decision.

5.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainants preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 26.05.2015 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

6.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the complainants have approached this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.

7.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and thoroughly perused the records.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the respondents were clearly deficient when they did not inform the complainants about other option of one time premium payment under the money plus scheme of the respondents.  The complainants feel that other option of one-time payment was much better as allocation charges were not to be deducted every year and that too at a higher percentage.  It was stated that the complaint was filed for either refunding the amount paid under the regular premium scheme or insurance to be changed from regular premium scheme to the one time premium scheme.  Both the Fora below have not appreciated the fact that the option of one-rime premium payment scheme was much better for the complainats and the same could not be availed by the complainants due to the fact that the Ops did not inform the complainants about this option. Hence, Ops are clearly deficient in service.

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments of the leaned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record.  First of all, it is to be noted that most of the policies of the complainants are now nearing completion and after being successfully run for the sufficient period of time, if at this stage the refund of the premium amount is ordered, the complainants will not be able to reap the benefits of the policy that they are likely to get after competition of the policy.  At this stage, the conversion from regular premium policy to one time premium policy is also not possible because no new policy can be issued from a date beyond prior to more than a year from the current date.  Policy is a contract between insured and the insurer and it has to be interpreted in the letter and spirit of the terms and conditions of the policy. This Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cherian,  II(1999)CPJ13 (NC) has observed:-

“16. The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein.”

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. HarchandralChandanlal, (2004) 8 SCC 644 has observed as under:-

“6. ….The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something: Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended.

9. …It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment.

14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous.”

11.    From the above judgments, it is clear that once the insured and the insurer have entered into the contract of the insurance, they are to be governed by the contract of the policy as well as the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus change from one type of policy to another is not possible at this stage.

12.  Moreover, the premium under one-time premium payment policy would be many times more than that for the regular premium payment policy for the same benefits. Therefore, there will not be much difference in  the allocation charges  under both the policies for the total period of the policy. I also find that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and have dismissed the complaint. In such cases, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as emanating from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

13.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 26.05.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.2012 of 2015 is dismissed at the admission stage.