course, the underwriting materials will be only to the exclusive knowledge and information of the insurer and it will not be divulged. But the insured, being a consumer, is entitled to know why that amount was imposed and how that amount was arrived at. In none of the letters it is explained as to how the mistake had crept in. They simply stated that during audit, it was found in deficit. In the absence of such particulars, it is to be taken that they accepted the offer to revive the policy for that sum on receiving that sum. In order to show it as mistake, the particulars must be divulged. All those delay occurred on account of the fault of the employee of the insurer. The employees of the insurer should have assessed the amounts due from him as premium for revival strictly according to the rules. If any fault was committed by him and any loss was caused, it must be realized from the incumbent. But instead of that, the insurer has not only failed to explain the matters to him but also asked to pay late fee for the delay occurred on such mistake. Hence that step is not proper. Of course, it looks that the premium payable on 28.01.2009 was not paid. But the insured's specific statement is that the insurer was refusing to accept the premium and finally he paid the amount demanded, under protest, and then again, they demanded interest. That statement looks to be correct. Otherwise, he would not have paid the amount demanded by the insurer. In such a situation, it is not at all proper to permit the insurer to realise either the late fee or interest on the amount payable. Of course, had it been explained to him as to how the figure was arrived at, instead of saying that the auditors have reported that there is deficit, the contention would have been appreciated. A consumer is entitled to be educated by the service provider, but for their default, the consumer is asked to pay penalty. Hence it is only proper to direct refund of the entire amount collected in excess of premium at Rs.1,26,209/- p.a. since
