IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22116 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.ELIZABATH JOSEPH,THE JAS, K.L.R.A-63 KUNDAPPANNU, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRALSTANDING COUNSIL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRIGADE SESHAMAL 5, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. *ADDL.R3 THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC 27/2603, PULINAT BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 015. *(IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2010 IN I.A.NO.14265/2010) MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22116 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1, an award passed by the additional 3rd respondent, rejecting the complaint made by the petitioner. 2. From the facts, it is seen that the petitioner had subscribed a policy issued by the 2nd respondent called Met Smart Policy with effect from 23/06/2006 for an assured sum of Rs.50 lakhs, subject to payment of annual insurance premium of Rs.4,48,300/-. In addition to the premium, the petitioner had also paid a dump premium of Rs.5,47,700/-. The petitioner had withdrawn Rs.2,35,000/- in July, 2007 and Rs.4,84,000/- in August, 2007 in terms of the withdrawal provision of the Policy, which was a unit linked insurance policy. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered the policy, and on 18/08/2008, the 2nd respondent worked out the WP(C) No.22116/2010 -2- balance amount payable to the petitioner as Rs.1,09,447.79, after applying the surrender penalty, which is incorporated in Clause 14 of the Policy. 3. The petitioner received the said payment, and thereafter made a demand to the 2nd respondent for payment of a further sum of Rs.4,34,543/-. That claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by their notice dated 31/10/2008. It was thereupon that the petitioner filed a complaint before the additional 3rd respondent. Notice was issued, the 2nd respondent filed its version, the parties were heard, and thereafter that Ext.P1 award was passed by the additional 3rd respondent rejecting the complaint. It is challenging the said award, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is still retaining an amount of Rs.4,34,543/- and therefore, the Insurance Ombudsman ought to have directed the 2nd respondent to pay the said amount. However, on a reading of Ext.P1 award, I am WP(C) No.22116/2010 -3- inclined to concur with the view taken by the Insurance Ombudsman. After referring to the policy documents and the pleadings available, the Insurance Ombudsman on facts came to the conclusion that in the 2nd year when the petitioner surrendered the policy, the surrender penalty leviable was 100% of the base premium and that after deducting the base premium, the petitioner was only entitled to get Rs.1,09,447/-. There is nothing to indicate that apart from what has been paid to the petitioner, any amount has been withheld by the 2nd respondent, and if that be so, in terms of the Policy, the petitioner, who was entitled to get only the fund value less surrender penalty, has been paid what was actually due in terms of the provisions contained in the Policy. In that view of the matter, I do not find anything in the order warranting interference. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg