Delhi

West Delhi

CC/10/755

GURPREET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No. 755 /2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. GURPREET KAUR SABHARWAL

W/O SHRI JASWINDER SINGH

R/O A-30, SHANKAR GARDEN, VIKASPURI,

NEW DELHI – 110015                                                                   …. COMPLAINANT

                                                                                      VERSUS

1. M/S AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

OFFICE AT B-1/632, 3^RD FLOOR,

JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI – 110058

 

2. M/S AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO.

OFFICE AT 5^TH FLOOR, MD REGENT SQUARE,

GURGAON MEHRAULI ROAD,

GURGAON, HARYANA

 

3. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,

1-A, HAMILTON HOUSE,

CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI                                 ….OPPOSITE PARTY          

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

25.10.2010 02.05.2023 03.05.2023

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

 

ORDER

1. Concise facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased Life Bound 5-Units linked Policy Number LFB1132634  from OP1 and 2 with effect from 23.12.2004 for sum assured of 5 lakh with fund value/premium of Rs. 99170 paid to OP 1 and 2.  The policy was to mature on 23.12.2014, the first premium was paid by complainant to OP1 and 2 through her banker  Standard Chartered Bank (OP3) on 21.12.2004. However, when the complainant approached OP1 and 2 vide letter dated 14.02.2006 seeking stoppage/cancellation of the said policy, despite assurance given by OP1 and 2 to refund the premium amount, OP 1 and 2 failed to do so on one pretext of the other for which complainant send legal notice dated 24.02.2010 through her counsel and reminder notice dated 12.06.2010 to the OPs demanding refund of the said amount but to no avail. Lastly, complainant filed the present complaint in October, 2010 alleging deficiency of service praying for issuance of directions against OPs to refund the premium amount or Rs. 99170 with interest at the rate of 24 % Per annum from the date of filling of the complaint till realization with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 15,000 towards cost of litigation. Complainant has attached copy of policy schedule with bank statement and copy of legal notice and reply.
2. Notice was issued to OPs on 25.10.2010. OPs entered appearance and file their respective written statements and in both written statements preliminary objection of limitation has been taken on ground that cause of action firstly arose in 2004 when policy was issued and in 2006 when complainant had written for stoppage of policy but the same was done two years after issuance of policy. We, therefore, do not discuss the defence on merits here since preliminary objections of limitation has been taken by all OPs and as per settled law, the question of maintainability has to be adjudicated before and if at all the case is to be proceeded on merits and can be decided at any stage of proceedings as has been held the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs Shri Ramachander Gehlot in CA No. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that issue of maintainability has to be decided before admitting or hearing the matter on merit and in judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Koshy Varghese Vs HDFC Bank Ltd III (2017)CPJ 52 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings. During the course of oral arguments none appeared on behalf of complainant & OP 1 & 2 appeared through Counsel & argued on part of limitation. None appeared from OP 3. Even otherwise grievance is against OP 1 & 2 for non-refund of premium. The case was reserved for orders U/s 38(3) (C) as pleadings was completed. Later, Some person had appeared for OP & was informed to address arguments but  failed to do so. Even otherwise no cogent explanation has come forth from the complainant for explaining this inordinate delay in filing of the complaint and no application for condonation of delay has also placed on record by the complainant. As is the settled law, issuance of legal notice or any correspondence exchanged between parties does not extend the limitation for filing consumer complaint once cause of action has already crystallized. As is in this case cause of action arose in 2004 itself since as per IRDA guidelines, there is free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy to seek cancelation of the same and even otherwise in 2006 seeking cancellation  of policy beyond free look period is not maintainable as has been laid down recently in Babulal Das & Ors VS Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2002) CPJ II (NC) passed on 30.11.2021 by Hon’ble National Commission on free look period, therefore, the complainant could not have asked for closure of policy two years after issuance and also cannot file the present complaint after expiry of two years from the date of cause of action to file present consumer complaint basing the limitation on issuance of legal notice as it does not extend limitation or give a continuing cause of action. The law on the said issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in so far as the nature and scope of Section 24 A is concerned in the landmark judgments of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 7 SCC 768, State Bank of India Vs B S Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121 and V. N. Shri khande (Dr) Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

 

For all of the above grounds the case is dismissed as non-maintainable/time barred.

3. File be consigned to record room.

 

Richa Jindal                       Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

 (Member)                            (Member)                                       (President)