Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/155/2019

Vijay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Avtar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2019

Date of Instt.:23.4.2019

Date of Decision: 17.02.2022

 

Vijay Singh (aged about 32 years) son of Sh.Jai Singh resident of village Balahi PO Dabkheri, Disitrict Kurukshetra.                                                              

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.Avtar Singh son of Nafe Singh, Agent of Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited. Resident of village Gharasi, P.O.Barana, Disitrict Kurukshetra.

 

2. Kotak Mohindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, 7^th Floor, Kotak Infinity  Bldg. No.21, Infinity Park, Off W E Highway, General AK Vidya Marg Malad (E) Mumbai – 400 097 through its Managing Director.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

 

Present:     Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex parte.

                Sh.Mohit Tayal, Advocate for OP No.2.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Vijay Singh against Avtar Singh  etc., the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant the on the allurement of the OP No.1  took the insurance policy No.03397006 dated 20.2.2016 namely Kotak Premier Money BacK Plan (UIN-107N083V01), policy term 24 years, total installment of Rs.99389/- .  The complainant deposited the premium installment of Rs.99389/- vide receipt No.AE679291 dated 15.2.2016.   The complainant was not liable to deposit any other installment, as at the time of issuance of the policy, the complainant was told that he has to deposit only one installment of Rs.99389/-  and his life was assured for 24 years on this amount only. The complainant had deposited the premium on 15.2.2016 and  on the policy, date was mentioned as 20.2.2016 which was received by the complainant after 1.1/2  mo nth after the payment of the premium. After the receipt of the policy and on going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant came to know that the complainant will have to pay the amount of Rs.99389/- for a period of 12 years.  As the complainant was not able to deposit such heavy amount of premium for 12 years, therefore, he immediately surrendered the policy and handed over the original policy to the OP No.1 but no receipt thereof was issued to the complainant. The complainant demanded back Rs.99389/- from the OP no.1 and the OP No.1 assured that they will refund the sum of Rs.99389/- to the complainant but nothing has been paid to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.   Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops have filed the present complaint has sought the refund of Rs.99389/- as premium amount paid by him alongwith interest and compensation for the mental agony and harassment  caused to  him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice OP No.1 failed to appear and contest the present complaint, therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated.

 

4.             OP No.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complaint.  It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer qua the Ops as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was given all the proposal forms and documents in hand as he has gone through all the documents and read over and signed himself. He was told that the plan of the policy, terms and conditions of the policy and premium and also sum assured as premium payment term was 12 years and the policy term is of 24 years and the sum assured was Rs.9,80,000/- and the yearly premium was Rs.99389/-. He has gone through all the documents.  The OP also told to the complainant about the free look cancellation period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, if the complainant is  unsatisfied from any point of the policy. But in this case, the policy was posted to the complainant on 22.2.2016 and same was received by the complainant on 29.2.2016 but the complainant never raised any objection and failed to surrender the policy within the free look period. Therefore,  there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

6.             On the other hand, OP No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1  to Ex.R-6 and closed its evidence.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments in the complaint has argued that complainant the on the allurement of the OP No.1  took the insurance policy No.03397006 dated 20.2.2016 namely Kotak Premier Money BacK Plan (UIN-107N083V01), policy term 24 years, total installment of Rs.99389/- .  It is argued that the  complainant deposited the premium installment of Rs.99389/- vide receipt No.AE679291 dated 15.2.2016.    It is also argued that the  complainant was not liable to deposit any other installment, as at the time of issuance of the policy, the complainant was told that he has to deposit only one installment of Rs.99389/-  and his life was assured for 24 years on this amount only. The complainant had deposited the premium on 15.2.2016 and  on the policy, date was mentioned as 20.2.2016 which was received by the complainant after 1.1/2  mo nth after the payment of the premium. After the receipt of the policy and on going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant came to know that the complainant will have to pay the amount of Rs.99389/- for a period of 12 years.  It is further argued that the complainant was not able to deposit such heavy amount of premium for 12 years, therefore, he immediately surrendered the policy and handed over the original policy to the OP No.1 but no receipt thereof was issued to the complainant. The complainant demanded back Rs.99389/- from the OP no.1 and the OP No.1 assured that they will refund the sum of Rs.99389/- to the complainant but nothing has been paid to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.   Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops have filed the present complaint has sought the refund of Rs.99389/- as premium amount paid by him alongwith interest and compensation for the mental agony and harassment  caused to  him and the litigation expenses.

 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that the complainant was given all the proposal forms and documents in hand as he has gone through all the documents and read over and signed himself. He was told that the plan of the policy, terms and conditions of the policy and premium and also sum assured as premium payment term was 12 years and the policy term is of 24 years and the sum assured was Rs.9,80,000/- and the yearly premium was Rs.99389/-. It is argued that the complainant  has gone through all the documents.  It is further argued that the  OP also told to the complainant about the free look cancellation period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, if the complainant is  unsatisfied from any point of the policy. But in this case, the policy was posted to the complainant on 22.2.2016 and same was received by the complainant on 29.2.2016 but the complainant never raised any objection and failed to surrender the policy within the free look period. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

9.             The complainant obtained the insurance policy Ex.C-4 from the OP no.2is not in dispute.  Ex.C-1 is the proposal deposit receipt.  In the policy schedule it is mentioned that the premium to be deposited was Rs.99389/- and the basic sum assured was Rs.9,80,000/-. The complainant had to pay the premium for twelve years.  The complainant has deposited only one  premium on 20.2.2016 and  the due date for the next premium was Rs.20.02.2017 which has not been paid by the complainant. The complainant has also failed to surrender the policy within free look period. Therefore, he is not entitled to any refund. The present complaint deserves dismissal on this  score alone.

 

10.            Further, the complainant took the policy in question on20.02.2016 and he has filed the present complaint on 23.4.2019.The present complaint  ought to have been filed by the complainant within a period of two years and its limitation expired on 20.2.2018 whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint on 23.4.2019 , therefore, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and it deserves to be dismissed on  this ground also. Therefore, no deficiency in services can be said to have been established on the part of the Ops.

 

11.            In view of our aforesaid reasons and findings, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed without any relief to the complainant.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 17.02.2022.                                                      President.

 

 

                                        Member             Member.