THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
Revision Petition No. 110/2019
PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd.Office at:
Unit No.701,702&703
7th floor, West Wing,
Raheja Towers, 26/27,
M.G. Road, Bangalore
Also at Hubli
Rep.by its Power of Attorney
Rajeev Sharma
(By Shri/Smt.I.Gopalakrishna)
...Complainant/s
V/s
1.Vasant Madhav Hegdekatte
S/o Prabhakara Hegadekatte,
Aged about 64 years,
Profession Medical,
Sakin Murulidhara Mutt road,
Karwar-581301
Uttara Kannada Dist.
….Respondent/s
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The Respondent/DHR has filed this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Order dt.28.06.2019 passed in EP.No.30/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttara Kannada.
2. The brief facts are:
The Respondent/DHR has filed complainant No.69/2016 before District Commission, Karwar alleging deficiency of service and sought for surrender value of policy as per terms and conditions along with compensation. The said complaint was allowed by District Commission along with cost and compensation. Since, the Revision Petitioner/JDR is not complied the order. Respondent has filed E.P No.30/2017 before District Commission Karwar and claim of Rs.5,62,500/-. Subsequently, during the pendency of EP No.30/2017 Revision Petitioner/JDR has paid Rs.2,22,334.92/- and Rs.10,720/- to the DHR/Respondent on 26.02.2018 and same was admitted by the DHR/Respondent and stated that as per amendment Rules issued by IRDA Revision Petitioner/JDR has still liable to pay sum of Rs.3,25,666/- to the DHR/Respondent.
3. During the proceeding, District Commission considering the IRDA Circular No.20/IRDA/ActL/ULIP/09-10 dated 22.07.2009 which came into effect from 1.10.2009 and on 28.06.2019 directed to the JDR/Revision Petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,25,666 to the DHR/Respondent within 45 days from the date of order failing which JDR is liable to pay 8% interest from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by this JDR/Revision Petitioner preferred this Revision Petition to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in execution No.30/2017
Heard both parties
4. Perused the order passed by the District Commission in EP.No.30/2017 and the documents. We noticed that as per allegations of the Respondent/DHR as per the amended rules of IRDA dated 22.07.2009. The DHR/Respondent is beneficiary of 10% growth since, the premium was accepted by the appellant company as per amended rules. The surrender amount has to be worked out as per amended rules per contra Revision Petitioner/JDR had contended that the policy was surrendered by the Respondent/DHR in May 2015. The funds were still with the Insurance Company hence, instead of calculating surrendered value on the basis of NAV applicable in 2015, he has calculated NAV till the date of payment in February 2018 and an accordingly released the amount of Rs.2,24,334.92/-
5. Perused the IRDA journal produced by the Respondent along with written arguments. We noticed that the circular came into effect from 1.09.2009 and IRDA directed that all products which are approved by the IRDA on or after 1.09.2009 will be governed by the provision of Circular. Moreover all existing products that do not meet the requirements of the circular should be withdrawn or modified by 31.12.2009. Moreover it is mentioned that at the time of sale for benefit illustration purpose, the Insurer may assume a growth of 10%p.a of the investment as a model. In view it is a module as suggested by the live counsels this will held the consumer to undertake the product and charge easily so, that proper could consider the growth and in utilizing and making new decision means growth of 10% is a model. It would be change. The object of IRDA is to protect the interest and fair treatment of policy holder. It is statutory body formed under an act of parliament for overall supervision and development of insurance sector. To ensure speedy settlements of claims, fraud and malpractices. Then it is duty of all Insurance Company to follow the rules and regulations of IRDA. There is Respondent who paid premium regularly up to the surrender of policy and as per the IRDA he is entitled for growth rate as per the IRDA Rule. If IRDA issued a circular, it is a duty of appellant company to inform the insured and modify the new terms though the Respondent/DHR purchased the policy prior to amendment rules of IRDA coming into force. The IRDA directed the Insurance Company that all the existing products that do not made the requirements and circular should be within the module by 31.12.2009. However, the appellant company is not modified the Rules as per the guidelines of the IRDA also not fixed the percentage of growth. Hence, we assume that the growth of 10% of the investment was adopted by the Appellant Company. Hence, Respondent/DHR is entitled for 10 percent growth of the investment.
6. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just a proper. No interference is required.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member Judicial Member
SP*
