Haryana

Sonipat

CC/75/2015

SAT NARAIN S/O HARDWARI LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MAX NEWYORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. ,2. MAX NEWYORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.,3. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY RATHEE

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.75 of 2015

Instituted on: 09.03.2015                 

Date of order: 19.06.2015

 

Sat Narain son of Hardwari Lal, resident of village Bad Malik, Tehsil Rai, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office 11^th and 12^th floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon, 122002 Haryana through its Branch Manager.

2. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd office Max House, 3^rd floor, 1 Dr Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020 through its RM/BM.

3. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office SCO 3 Ist Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Sector 14, Sonepat through its BM.

4.Gulshan Raj Saini, Advisor of Max New York Life Insurance, PNB Bank, Rai, Sonepat.

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:  Shri Ajay Rathi, Advocate for complainant.

          Respondents no.1 to 4 ex-parte on 15.05.2015.

 

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 the respondent no.1 met the complainant at his house and explained the complainant abut the plan of Max Life Insurance which is for fifteen years.  The complainant accepted the plan of insurance and paid Rs.50000/- yearly for his insurance for 15 years.  The complainant was insured by the respondents vide policy bearing no.619303050 in the year of 2009.  The complainant deposited the amount of premium of Rs.50,000/-  each on 7/2009, 13.7.2010 and 4.7.2011 i.e. total Rs.1,50,000/-. But unfortunatlely the complainant could not pay the fourth installment in the year 2012 and the complainant told the respondents that he want to withdraw his amount and on this, the respondents told the complainant that he can withdraw the amount after five years.  But the complainant was surprised to see that a cheque no.105622 dated 21.8.2013 of Rs.50,000/- was sent to the complainant without surrender of the policy because the complainant has not surrendered the policy till now.  The complainant approached the respondent no.3, who told that the remaining amount of Rs.one lac has been seized by the respondents.  The complainant has suffered a financial loss to revive the policy to the tune of Rs.20,000/- 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.        Notice to respondent no.1 to 4 were sent through registered post.  But none appeared on behalf of the respondents and due to this, the respondents no.1 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.05.2015.

3.        The complainant in support of his case has placed on record three payment receipts.

4.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

         In the present case, the complainant himself has admitted that he could not deposit the fourth installment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of July, 2012 with the respondents.  The complainant has not surrendered the policy, but despite this, the respondents no.1 to 3 sent a cheque no.105622 dated 21.8.2013 of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and with held the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.  In our view, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds as he himself did not pay the fourth installment in the year 2012.  In our view the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents no.1 to 3.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to pay the balance amount of Rs.1 Lac (as complainant has already received Rs.50,000/- from his total invested amount of Rs.1,50,000/-) alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till decision of the case and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

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

Certified copy of this order be provided to

the complainant free of costs and be also sent to the respondents no.1 to 4 for information and  its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

Prabha Wati Member    DV Rathi Member     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP             DCDRF SNP         President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 19.06.2015