DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Didar Singh s/o Ram Singh, r/o Village Bhago Majra, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.

                   --- Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite DLF Gold Course, DLF Phase V, Sec. 43, Gurgaon – 122003, through its Manager.

[2]     Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: SCO No. 180-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:        MADHU MUTNEJA                                       PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                     MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, allured by the rosy pictures about the handsome returns, depicted by the Executive of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- through Cheque No. 460558 dated 22.3.2006 for Rs.30,000/- and No. 460559 for Rs.30,000/-, in a fervent hope of getting good returns, in future. The Complainant claims that he was made to sign on the blank papers by the executive of the Opposite Parties and no document with regard to the investment reached his residence. He was only handed over the copies of the proposal forms by the Agent (Annex.C-1 & C-2). Moreover, the address of the Complainant was written as Didar Singh C/o Rajan Sharma, Centurion Bank of Punjab, SCO No. 52-53, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. During March, 2008, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties, he was told to deposit another amount of Rs.60,000/- in order to get the benefits and interest, which the Complainant did.  However, he was handed over two letters dated 15.4.2008 (Annex. C-3 & C-4), thereby enclosing two cheques of Rs.30,000/- each, stating that his request of reinstatement of the policy has been declined. The Complainant claims that neither was he informed about the investment nor any information regarding the lapse of the investment was ever communicated to him; and everything was done by the Opposite Parties in their office without his consent. The Complainant repeatedly approached the Opposite Parties to get the refund of Rs.60,000/- but in vain. When nothing fructify, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2011 upon the Opposite Parties (Annex.C-6), which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties, taking a stand that both his policies stood lapsed on 26.5.2007 due to non-payment of renewal premium, which according to the Complainant tantamounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. 

3.                Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant had taken the policy after being fully aware of all the terms & conditions. The policy terms were duly delivered to him and he had paid two premiums also (though second was refunded) now the Complainant wants to retract from the policy and is claiming his amount back. It is asserted that the contents of the proposal were filled in by the Complainant and signed by him, therefore, now, he cannot disown the same. Moreover, the address was provided by the Complainant himself; and the documents were sent to the given address. Also, the subsequent cheque was received by the Complainant, at the same address, and even proposal for reinstatement was made from the said address. The refund cheques as dispatched to the same address have been encashed by the Complainant. It is asserted that if no lapse information was received, where was the opportunity for the Complainant to have issued fresh cheques for the revival of the policy, hence, a false case is being set up by the Complainant. The answering Opposite Parties claim that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the policy, he could have applied for cancelation of the same within the free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy, which option was not exercised by him. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                The Complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground of having subscribed for a policy in the year 2006, by filling up two proposal forms dated 22.3.2006 and 25.3.2006 (Annexure C-1 & C-2). The Complainant thereafter did not pay the premium amount and has raised an objection that he was not aware of any such annual premium plan to be paid regularly every year, as the original policy documents were not delivered at his end. The Complainant had initially agitated the matter with the Opposite Parties in the year 2008 and on such request, the Opposite Parties in its reply dated 15.4.2008 responded by refusing the same and also returned the cheques which were for the reinstatement of the policies, which had seized for non-payment of regular premiums. The Complainant thereafter, did not pursue the matter with the Opposite Parties any further. 

7.                However, from perusal of document Annex.C-5 [Pg.32], the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Parties by writing a letter dated 15.5.2011, and thereafter, served a legal notice dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure C-6).This legal notice was replied back by the Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 11.8.2011 (Annex.C-7). The Opposite Parties held their ground and defended themselves by quoting reasons in their reply.

8.                In the given situation, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant for the last time registered his grievance in the month of April, 2008, and thereafter, did not make any effort to pursue the same and hence, as the cause of action that had accrued to him alleging any deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties had actually run out of its limitation period in the month of April, 2010. The Complainant should have preferred the present complaint before April, 2010 and hence, the letter dated 15.5.2011 which was written after the expiry of the limitation period of two years, in no manner could extend the period of limitation during which a consumer complaint could be preferred by a Complainant. Hence, the present complaint, which was preferred by the Complainant on 18.8.2011, is hopelessly time barred and deserves no merit.

9.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. There is no order as to costs.         

10.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th April, 2013.                                           

Sd/-

                                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER