Haryana

Sonipat

249/2014

NANDLAL S/O GHANSHYAM DASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. B.M. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,3. JAI RAJ - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.249 of 2014

Instituted on: 19.09.2014                 

Date of order: 26.02.2016

 

Nand Lal son of late Sh. Ghansham Dass, r/o H.No.169/28, Garhi Ghasita,Kakroi road, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office

Max House, 3^rd floor, 1 Dr Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director/CEO.

2.Branch Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. GT road, Panipat.

3.Jai Raj(code no.409176) (authorized agent of Max New York Life Insurance) r/o H.No.229/15, Mohanpura, Sonepat.

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Mannu Malik, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Trilochan Mago, Adv. for respondents no.1&2.  Respondent no.3 given-up on 9.12.2015.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one policy no.843826462 on 30.3.2011 on payment of Rs.,31000/- as first premium to the respondent no.3, who has told that the premium amount of the said policy will be paid by the complainant on yearly basis and the premium amount can be got refunded by the complainant as and when required.  However, after receipt of the policy, it was transpired that the maturity period of the policy is 25 years and premium amount payable yearly is Rs.30000.41  i.e. on 30^th March every year.  However, on persuation of respondent no.3, he has paid an amount of Rs.31000/- to the respondent no.3 in the month of 3/2012. The complainant before the due date of payment of next premium, asked the respondent no.3 that due to financial constrained, he will not be able to continue the said policy and asked him to get refunded the amount already paid by him.  The complainant on 30.3.2013 moved an application to the respondent no.1 and the complainant in response to the letter dated 9.4.2013 submitted all the required documents to the respondent no.1.  But till date, the respondents have not refunded the amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their joint written statement, whereas respondent no.3 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant on 09.12.2015.

          The respondent no.1 and 2 have submitted that the policy no.843826462 cannot be cancelled as the request received for cancellation of policy is outside policy review period. After the gap of more-than three years of issuance of the policy, the complainant is alleging mis-selling of policy.   The complainant with his own will had opted for the policy and had enjoyed all the benefits of the policy. The respondents have duly intimated the complainant that the said policy cannot be surrendered and the premium paid towards the policy cannot be refunded as the policy is already in lapse mode since 30.3.2013 due to non-payment of the premium. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 as despite repeated requests of the complainant, the respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to refund the amount of Rs.62000/- to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld.counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the policy no.843826462 cannot be cancelled as the request received for cancellation of policy is outside policy review period. After the gap of more-than three years of issuance of the policy, the complainant is alleging mis-selling of policy.   The complainant with his own will had opted for the policy and had enjoyed all the benefits of the policy. The respondents have duly intimated the complainant that the said policy cannot be surrendered and the premium paid towards the policy cannot be refunded as the policy is already in lapse mode since 30.3.2013 due to non-payment of the premium. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents and in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs.62000/- from the respondents no.1&2.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.62000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The respondents no.1 and 2 are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member    DV Rathi Member     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP             DCDRF SNP         President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 26.02.2016