Haryana

Kaithal

414/19

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aegon Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Surender Kundu

30 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.414/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:    30.10.2023

 

1. Madan Lal son of Sh. Purshotam Dass aged about 41 years resident House No. 1474, ward No. 10 Brahman Mohalla, Dhand, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

Versus

1. Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Building No.3, 3rd floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT PARK, Western Express Highway Goregaon (E) Mumbai.
2. Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, S.C.O.407, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Surender Kundu, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. S.C. Walia, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Madan Lal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that on 30.03.2015 the complainant took the insurance policy bearing No.150314382063 plan name “Aegon Religare Future Protect Plus Insurance Plan” for the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs at Village Dhand and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of the said policy. The case of complainant is that the OPs assured the complainant to provide the policy documents and F.P.R. of the insurance policy within one month but they do not do so. The complainant requested the OPs several times to provide the details regarding the delivery of policy or otherwise cancel the policy and to refund the amount of the complainant but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that at the outset, the OPs humbly submit that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is grossly barred by limitation; that the disputed policy was issued to the complainant 31.03.2015 which was dispatched on 07.04.2015 by the respondent company and received on 13.04.2015. Hence, cause of action in the present complaint, if any, commenced in the year 2015 when the policies were issued.  There is no credible reason for the inordinate delay of 2 years after the cessation of the Limitation Period as per Law.  It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs was in first receipt of the Free-Look cancellation request on 26.12.2015 which was after the free look period and therefore, the same was denied and communicated to the policy-holder on 18.01.2016.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to annexure C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents annexure R1 to annexure R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that on 30.03.2015 the complainant took the insurance policy bearing No.150314382388 plan name “Aegon Religare Future Protect Plus Insurance Plan” for the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs at Village Dhand and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is further argued that the OPs assured the complainant to provide the policy documents and F.P.R. of the insurance policies within one month but they do not do so. It is further argued that the complainant requested the OPs several times to provide the details regarding the delivery of policies or otherwise cancel the policies and to refund the amount of the complainant but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed upon the case law titled as Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. Unitech (NCDRC(New Delhi) C.P.J. 440 : 2015(3) CLT 16 : 2015(27) R.C.R. ( Civil) 350 and Anthony H. Silva Vs. Hermonie Mary Salazar Manor, 2018(2).5: 2018(1) C.PR. 193 :2018 NCJ 343: 2018(2) CLT 280.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is grossly barred by limitation.  It is further argued that the disputed policies were issued to the complainant on 31.03.2015 which was dispatched on 07.04.2015 by the respondent company and received on 13.04.2015 by the complainant. Hence, cause of action in the present complaint, if any, commenced in the year 2015 when the policies were issued.  There is no credible reason for the inordinate delay of 2 years after the cessation of the Limitation Period as per Law.  It is further argued that the OPs was in first receipt of the Free-Look cancellation request on 26.12.2015 which was after the free look period and therefore, the same was denied and communicated to the policy-holder on 18.01.2016.  Ld. counsel for the OPs has placed reliance upon the case law titled as KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAH AND CO. VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER AND STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. B.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES.

9.     We have heard contention of the both parties it is admitted fact that complainant has taken one insurance policy from opposite party on 30.03.2015 and paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) to the opposite party 30.03.2015. Last letter written by the complainant to the opposite party i.e. Ex. C5 dated 17.06.2017. Limitation period for filing the complaint of this commission is two year. Complainant has been filed by the complaint on dated 06.12.2019 beyond the date of limitation period of two years.

10.    The case law given by the Ld. Counsel for complainant is not applicable to the fact of the present case.

11.    “On relying upon judgment of Supreme Court of India SIGMA KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAH AND CO. VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COM. LTD AND ANOTHER Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2002-Decided on 10.07.20009, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 23,24A Limitation time-barred-Insurance claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March 1988- Intimation to Bank, in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March, itself Insurance Company informed in November 1992- period of Limitation expired-Section 24 A, Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-complainant before Consumer For a filed in October 1997, dismissed as time barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of Insurance Company in honouring claim received in March-Limitation period will commence from that date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continues till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no any helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period-Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference required in appeal.” Moreover no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant.

12.  Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid to be dismissed on the ground of limitation of two years “under Section 24A. Limitation period –The District Forum, The State Commission or The National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the casus of action has arisen”.  A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dated:- 30.10.2023

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

 

Typed by: Nitin Kumar Steno-Typist