BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/10/2010

Date of Order : 30/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 553/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant had entrusted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the 1^st opposite party under the Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain on 02-06-2007. Authorised signatory of the 1^st opposite party had issued a receipt dated 02-06-2007 from the branch office, Kochi for the said amount. Though the opposite parties had made several offers to the complainant including family medical insurance coverage as bonuses, the opposite parties did not care to consummate such offers by necessary steps, despite repeated contacts. Having been realised the deceptive and unfair trade practice, the complainant demanded through various communications to pay back the sum deposited with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not cared to pay back the amount. Consequently, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice on 30-08-2010 to the 1^st opposite party. The opposite party did not respond to so far. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 15-09-2009, when the 1^st opposite party failed to respond to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties :

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay back Rs. 20,000/- with interest.

2. To pass an order allowing damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant together with costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant took policy from the opposite parties. The policy commenced from 02-06-2007. The first premium amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the complainant. In view of the said fact, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. As per the policy, the complainant has to remit the premium amount yearly. If the premiums are not paid in the due date, a grace period of 30 days is allowed. This complainant has failed to pay the amount even within the grace period ie. 01-07-2008, thus policy has been lapsed. The complainant has not approached the opposite party for reviving the policy. Thus after 2 years, the policy will be terminated. As such policy stands terminated on 01-07-2010. The opposite parties never offered life insurance and medical insurance coverage. As per the norms of the policy, the complainant is entitled for life insurance coverage only and the sum assured for the complainant was Rs. 1 lakh. If the complainant needs medial insurance coverage, he has to opt for additional riders at the time of filling the proposal form. The opposite parties shall not be held liable, if the complainant has ignored to verify the terms of the policy that he intended to avail, which can only be attributed to the negligence of the complainant. The complainant also had the option to go through the terms of the policy bond and if not acceptable was provided with the option of 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of the policy to approach the insurer for cancellation of the policy stating the reason, which the complainant has failed to do so. The said option is also provided by the IRDA in its guidelines. There is no cause of action against the opposite parties.

3. The complainant appeared in person. The opposite parties appeared through the counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined from the side of the opposite parties and Ext. B1 was marked. Thereafter, we have heard both sides.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties?

3. Compensation and costs, if any?

5. Point No. i. :- The opposite parties contended that the complaint is time barred, since the policy commenced on 02-06-2007 and the 1^st premium was remitted on the same day. This complaint was filed on 18-10-2010.

6. Ext. A1 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 30-08-2010, Ext. A2 is its receipt and Ext. A3 is the policy certificate. During cross-examination, the complainant deposed that the said document was received by him after 8 months, that must be in February 2008. He further deposed that in Ext. A3 the free look period of 15 days is mentioned. He did not pay premium after 02-06-2007. According to the complainant, after the receipt of Ext. A3, he informed the opposite party that the policy need not be continued. But no evidence to that effect is forthcoming from him. On a perusal of Ext. A3, it is stated that under the head 25 “h) surrender charge” - “If the first 3 years regular Premiums are not paid and the policy is lapsed, the Surrender Charge on regular premium unit, value would be 100% of the first year's annualized Allocated Premium.” Eventhough the maturity date of policy is upto 02-06-2017, the above said clause is applicable in the case of non-payment of subsequent premiums. According to the complainant, when he realised the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, he demanded through various communications to pay back the amount remitted with them. But no evidence is before us to substantiate those contentions. The complainant himself admitted that he has received Ext. A3 in February 2008. He is also admitted that he is aware of the 15 days free look period that is the cause of action for this complaint started to run from the expiry of the said 15 days. Hence the cause of action for this complaint started to run from March 2008 and the complainant has filed this complaint only on 18-10-2010 which is beyond the period of limitation as contemplated in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of September 2011.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========