Haryana

Sonipat

CC/329

OM PARKASH S/O MEHAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

AJAY RATHEE

11 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.329 of 2014

Instituted on: 2.12.2014                  

Date of order: 19.06.2015

 

Om Parkash son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Badhkhalsa, tehsil Rai and 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.Ganga Ram, 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

 

1.       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 Amsure Secure Returns Builder which is for fifteen years.  The complainant accepted the plan of insurance and paid Rs.15000/- yearly for his insurance.  The complainant was insured by the respondents vide policy bearing no.607984226 on 29.06.2008.  The complainant received policy after some time of insurance. The complainant deposited the amount of premium of Rs.15,000/-  from 2008 to 2010.  After giving three policy premium, the complainant requested the respondent no.3 regarding surrender of policy.  The complainant deposited the next year policy premium within time on 20.5.2011 and 11.7.2012 of Rs.15000/- and after this, the complainant again requested the respondent no.3 regarding surrender of policy, but of no use.  The complainant submitted written application in this regard  on 10.2.2014, but of no use and the respondents finally denied to pay the amount of policy. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs.75000/- with interest and compensation.

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 15.05.2015.

3.        The complainant in support of his case has placed on record the copy of schedule, four 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 and has come to the conclusion that in the present case despite registered notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4 and due to this, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.5.2015.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum  is as to for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

         The complainant in his complaint has submitted that he submitted the application before the respondent no.3 regarding surrender of policy.  The complainant has placed on record the photo copy Annexure C8, but it is very sorry state of affairs that this application is not having any stamp etc. regarding its receipt by the company. Though the present complaint is ex-parte, but the onus heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case and the version of the complainant cannot be believed in toto.  However, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to return the amount to the complainant after treating his case as surrender of policy and whatever amount is became payable to the complainant under surrender of policy clause as on 10.2.2014, the same be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 10.2.2014 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