Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ss. 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 3 & 14 – Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss. 2(46), 2(47), 47, 49 & 59 – Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders Interests) Regulations, 2002 – Insurance Claim – Repudiation of – Exclusion Clause – Appellant secured a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the respondent on 28.07.2012 – Policy was effective from 28.07.2012 to 27.07.2013 and it was meant to cover a shop situated in the basement of the building – However, the exclusion clause of the contract specified that it did not cover the basement – Shop met with a fire accident for which the appellant raised a claim – Claim was repudiated by the respondent, taking umbrage under the exclusion clause – On challenge, State Consumer held that there was no adequate disclosure and the insurer was deficient in service and indulged in unfair trade practice – National Commission overturned the order passed by the State Commission by placing reliance upon the exclusion clause – Whether an exclusion clause destroying the very contract knowingly entered, can be permitted to be used by a party who introduced it, becomes a beneficiary and then to avoid its liability–Held: An exclusion clause has to be understood on the touch-stone of the doctrine of reading down in the light of the underlining object and intendment of the contract – It can never be understood to mean to be in conflict with the main purpose for which the contract is entered – It is the foremost duty of the insurer to give effect to a due disclosure and notice in its true letter and spirit – Once, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, comes to the conclusion that the term of a contract is unfair, particularly by adopting an unfair trade practice, the aggrieved party has to be extended the resultant relief – Once it is proved that there is a deficiency in service and that respondent knowingly entered into a contract, notwithstanding the exclusion clause, the consequence would flow out of it – As per the common law principle of acquiescence and estoppel, respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. Contract Act, 1872 – ss. 2, 10, 17, 18 & 19 – Adhesion contracts/Standard Form of Contract – Insurance Contract – These contracts are prepared by the insurer having a standard format upon which a consumer is made to sign – The insurer who, being the dominant party dictates its own terms, leaving it upon the consumer, either to take it or leave it - Such contracts are obviously one sided, grossly in favour of the insurer due to the weak bargaining power of the consumer. Doctrine of Blue Pencil – Discussed.