BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 05^th DAY OF MARCH 2018

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to pay him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant purchased a policy from TATA AIG broker on 21.04.2009 and his policy number is U069330588.  That the complainant bought the said policy for his daughter Lahari D.  That he was advised to take a policy by the broker and when asked the broker stated that, the lock-in-period is at least one year.  That the complainant did not receive the policy bond to utilize free look period of 15 days.  That after receiving the policy bond he called toll free number and he was asked to approach the branch in Bangalore.  That after reaching the branch in Richmond Road, complainant lodged a written complaint in 2010 against the broker/agent but there was no any solution for the complainant.  That a person by name Umashankar working in the said branch stated that the complainant at least have to make payment for 3 consecutive years to keep the policy in force.  That the complainant accordingly made payment for further two years at the rate of Rs.25,000/- p.a.  That after making payment for three years the complainant stopped making full payment in the year 2014.  OPs without prior intimation to complainant sent him a cheque for Rs.46,645/- though he has made payment of Rs.75,000/-.  That the complainant thereafter lodged necessary complaint on three occasions and also another complaint in the month of July 2014 but he did not get any response from OPs.  That though complainant requested OPs to refund at least the amount of premium paid by him, but OPs did not care for the same.  That the complainant has lost his hard earned money of Rs.75,000/- and he has been cheated by the OPs.  That since OPs did not heed to any on his complaint and request, he was forced to approach the Forum for redressal.    

3. In response to the notice issued, OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the same has been filed beyond the limitation period of two years.  That the policy was issued on 21.04.2009 and the last premium under the said policy was paid on 30.04.2011.  Thus the cause of action has to be calculated as per the last payment of premium and the present case it shall be calculated from 30.04.2011 onwards.  That the present complaint has been filed in the year 2014 which is after a period of more than 2½ years, disputing the terms and conditions of the policy contract.  That the complainant even has not sought for condonation of delay.  Therefore, on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  That the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ since he has obtained Unit Linked Insurance Policy from OPs.  That the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  That the current complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of being malafide, baseless and lacking cause of action.

That after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy “TATA AIA Life Invest Assure Flexi Supreme”, complainant expressed his willingness to obtain the policy for his daughter D.Lahari and furtherance to that, duly filled up and signed the proposal form on 21.04.2009.  That the complainant also signed the declaration to the effect that all the terms and conditions of the policy contract were duly explained to him.  That in the proposal form it was clearly stated that the annual premium payable shall be Rs.25,000/- for a period of 30 years and the sum assured shall be Rs.7,50,000/-.  That on the information provided in the proposal form and upon receipt of premium amount a policy bearing No.U069330588 was issued in the name of D.Lahari i.e., daughter of complainant.  That the said policy was sent at the address of complainant on 30.04.2009 through Blue Dart courier which was delivered to complainant on 02.05.2009.  If the duly dispatched policy pack, it was clearly and specifically stated that the complainant has right to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents in case he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy contract.  That the complainant did not request for cancellation of the policy nor raised any query during the free look period.  That OP received complaint from complainant and after examining the grievances of the complainant a reply letter dated 10.08.2010 was sent to complainant stating that his request could not be processed for the reason that the same was beyond the free look period of 15 days.  That complainant under the said policy has paid only three premiums whereas as per the policy contract, he was liable to pay premium for 30 years.  That complainant is disputing the terms and conditions of the policy contract and is falsely alleging mis-selling and claiming refund of the amount.  That such a request cannot be entertained under the terms and conditions of the policy documents.  That the complainant has not placed any cogent evidence before this Forum to prove that, the policy was wrongly issued to him.  That the policy was issued only after receiving consent from the complainant and the complainant has enjoyed and availed the life insurance coverage.  That the complainant after a period of four years cannot be allowed to claim for refund of premium amount for which the OP has duly provided the services to the complainant.  That the complainant with an intention of making wrongful gain has put forth false and bogus stories.

For the above amongst other reasons, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and has placed reliance on certain documents.  One P.B Ganapathy S/o P.S Bheemaiah, Assistant Manager, Legal of Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., tendered his affidavit evidence on behalf of OPs reiterating the averments made in the version.  OPs have also relied upon certain documents in support of their case.  Written arguments have filed by OPs.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. It is the case of the complainant that, on 21.04.2009 he purchased a policy bearing No.U069330588 from OPs Company through a broker in the name of his daughter.  The complainant did not mention as to what was his purpose in obtaining the said policy and also did not mention the period of policy and premium to be paid by him, every year.  As could be seen from the copy of the proposal form and other documents produced by the OP, it is revealed that, the policy which the complainant obtained was “TATA AIA Life Invest Assure Flexi Supreme” policy and annual premium payable by the complainant was Rs.25,000/- and premium was to be paid for a period of 30 years and the sum assured was Rs.7,50,000/-.  The complainant did not deny that the policy which was obtained by him in favour of his daughter was for a period of 30 years and annual premium was to be paid by him was Rs.25,000/-.

8. OPs have produced the copy of the proposal form signed by the complainant as well as the General Amendment Form duly signed by the complainant.  From the plain reading of the proposal form, it is evident that, the complainant who is an educated man has obtained the said policy in the name of his daughter having agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy documents and has agreed to pay annual premium at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for a period of 30 years.  There is also no dispute regarding the sum assured which the daughter of the complainant is entitled at the end of policy period.  The complainant having purchased such a policy which is for a period of 30 years alleges that, when he asked the broker/agent he was informed that the lock-in-period is for a minimum of one year.  We do not understand what was the reason for complainant in asking for lock-in-period when the term of the policy was for a period of 30 years.  Furthermore, after having paid premium for one year the complainant has stopped paying further premium for the reasons best known to him.  Later on after having come to know that, he will get the surrender value only after paying three annual premiums continuously, he has made payment of further premiums for the next two years and thus he has paid premium for a period of three years and again stopped paying premium.  We do not understand what is the intention the complainant in obtaining the said long term policy, if at all he was not interested in paying premium even for a period of three years.

9. Though complainant did not mention on which date, month and year he paid the third premium, the version filed by OP as well as the documents produced by them discloses that, he has paid second premium on 01.06.2010 and third on 30.04.2011, since the complainant stopped paying premium from the 4^th year.  OPs as per the Premium Holiday clause have kept the policy alive but when the complainant failed to pay further annual premium despite repeated reminders OPs have calculated the surrender value as per the terms of the policy and have paid him a sum of Rs.46,645/- which the complainant has received on 21.05.2014.  The very averments of complainant goes to show that his intention in obtaining the policy was not for the benefit of his daughter but only for the purpose of making certain money by investing certain amount for short period of 1 to 3 years.  A insurance policy is a contract between complainant and the OP Company and any dispute arising between complainant and OP has to be determined as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  In fact here there is no any dispute but only a default on the part of the complainant himself.  We don’t find any deficiency on the part of OPs as far as honouring terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant himself for the reason best known to him and may be with certain motive has obtained a policy for a term of 30 years and has tried to terminate the policy immediately after one year.  The complainant certainly cannot be permitted to demand the premium paid by him merely because he does not want to continue with the policy.

10. The complainant who has been delivered the policy documents on 02.05.2009 has failed to cancel the policy within free look period of 15 days.  If at all the complainant was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the policy, he ought to have cancelled the policy and demanded back the premium within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document, however the complainant has not chosen to do so.  Therefore, the complainant after expiry of the free look period and more so, after expiry of one year from the date of obtaining the policy cannot be permitted to terminate the policy and demanded the premium paid by him, in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant himself being defaulter cannot allege that he was either cheated by agent of OPs and OPs themselves, in selling the said policy to him.

11. The policy in question was issued to complainant on 21.04.2009 and the last premium paid by complainant was on 30.04.2011.  Thus the cause of action has to be calculated from the date of last payment of premium and in the case on hand it shall be calculated from 30.04.2011 onwards.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 26.11.2014 more than 2 ½ years from the date of cause of action which arouse for filing the present complaint.  The limitation provided for filing the complaint is two years from the date of cause of action as provided U/s.24-A of Consumer Protection Act.  However, the present complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation.  More over the complainant has also not filed any application for condoning delay in preferring the present complaint.  He has also not assigned any reason much less acceptable reasons for the delay in filing the present complaint.  The learned advocate for OPs placing reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in case a between TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Harvinder Singh & Ors FA No.300/2014 dated 27.10.2014 argued that, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by time since the complainant has failed to file the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action i.e., within two years from 30.04.2011.  Perused the said judgment, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission while dealing with a similar issue have held as under:

“The next question, to be decided is as to whether the complaint was barred by limitation or not.  The answer to this question, is in the affirmative.  The first premium was paid by respondent No.1/complainant in April, 2005.  The second premium fell due on 26^th April, 2006.  He could pay the same up to 26.05.2006 after availing of the grace period of 31 years.  He, however, did not pay the same.  The policy, thus, lapsed.  He did not get revived the same.  The cause of action arose to him on 26.05.2006.  He could file the complaint up to 26.05.2008.  The complaint having been instituted on 30.04.2013 was palpably barred by time.  The District Forum was also right in holding so”.

12. In view of the ratio laid down in the above cited authority also in view of the fact that, the present complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation of two years, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  Looking from any angle the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Complainant has been paid whatever the amount he is entitled towards surrender value.  Therefore, he is not entitled for any further amount much less any compensation.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

14.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 05^th day of March 2018)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.07.2015.

Sri.K.Dharmaraj,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties dated 05.05.2015.

1. Sri.P.B Ganapathy.

Document produced by the Opposite parties:

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Vln*