DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:301 of 2011] Date of Institution :12.07.2011 Date of Decision :12.04.2012 --------------------------------------- Sh. Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh resident of House No.3092/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through Chief Executive Officer, Unit 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off: Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. [2] Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No.28-29-30, 2nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. R. S. Dhull, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT [1] Sh. Sukhdev Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) To refund the surrender value of the insurance policy in question along with interest @18% pr annum; ii) To pay compensation (in terms of penalty) for physical harassment and mental agony on account of deficiency in service; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. [2] The facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in the present complaint are as under: - According to the complainant, one Ms. Balwinder Kaur approached him and gave rosy pictures regarding the policy known as “Plan Wealth Confident” and persuaded him to get his life insured with Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited and purchase the said policy. Believing the facts stated by her to be correct, the complainant purchased Policy bearing No.500-1189769 from OPs (Annexure C-3) covering risk of his life for the period from 28.05.2008 to 28.05.2019. He paid the first premium of Rs.25,000/- on 28.05.2008. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the risk of his life was covered for the period of ten years and the complainant was required to pay the premium of Rs.25,000/- every year for the said period. It has further been impleaded by the complainant that he received the policy on 28.05.2008. Thereafter, he made enquires from the OPs a number of times about the status of his policy i.e. the value of the amount deposited by him. However, he did not receive any answer to the queries made by him. He approached the officials of OPs a number of times and also approached Ms. Balwinder Kaur but to no avail. In these circumstances, according to the complainant, he could not pay the subsequent premiums. In the first week of May 2011, the complainant came to know that the value of his policy has come down substantially. Thus, according to him, his policy was mismanaged during the said period of three years. Therefore, according to the complainant, he offered to surrender the insurance policy to get back whatever value his policy commands instead of depositing any further premium due to lack of confidence in the management of OPs. It has further been pleaded that the complainant at no point of time demanded refund of premium of amount, which has been wrongly stated in the reply to the legal notice. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that despite several requests for payment of surrender value of the policy, OPs have failed to pay the surrender value, which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above. [3] In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that the life of the complainant was insured for the period of ten years and Policy No.500-1189769 was issued to him covering the risk for the said period. It has also been admitted that the complainant paid the first premium of Rs.25,000/- on 28.05.2008. The case of OPs is that the complainant was required to pay further premiums as per the schedule of the policy, for a period of ten years. However, the complainant did not pay any premium after payment of the first premium on 28.05.2008. It has further been pleaded that the Lock-In-Period of the policy was three years. Despite the fact that the OPs sent notices requiring the complainant to deposit the premiums, which had become due and for renewal of policy, the complainant did not pay the premiums. So, ultimately, the OPs sent a notice whereby the complainant was informed that his policy had lapsed due to non payment of renewal premium. It has further been pleaded that thereafter OPs sent letter dated 12.04.2011 to the complainant whereby he was informed that he could pay the due premium up-till 28.05.2011 failing which the policy in question would be terminated. Despite this notice, the complainant did not deposit the remaining premiums. In these circumstances, the surrender value, which became due, after completion of the Lock-In-Period, was paid to the complainant. Thus, according to the OPs, no amount is outstanding against them and the complaint deserves dismissal. [4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. [5] Annexure C-3 is the Policy Bond. Clause 4.5(a) of the said Policy Bond reads as under: - “4.5 Discontinuance of Premium. a. Discontinuance of Regular Premium within three years of the Policy Date. If any Regular Premium due within the first three years of the Policy Date remains unpaid even after the grace period of 30 days from the date of unpaid Premium, the benefit of the Sum Assured in the Policy will cease to exist and the Policy will lapse with effect from the due date (“Lapse Date”). xxxxxx” [6] From bare reading of this condition, it is apparent that if regular premium, which had become due within the first three years of the policy , remained unpaid, the benefit of the sum assured in the policy will lapse with effect from the due date. In the present case, it is admitted case of the complainant himself that he did not pay even a single premium after payment of the first premium on 28.05.2008. In these circumstances, OPs paid the value of the policy after it stood lapsed on completion of three years because of failure in payment of the premiums, which became due by that time. The complainant also failed to get the policy revived on payment of the required fees. The factum of receipt of the value of the policy has not been denied specifically during the course of arguments. There is also no specific denial of this fact, which has been pleaded in the written statement. [7] In these circumstances, to our mind, the complainant is not entitled to any other amount. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. [8] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 12th April, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.301 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 09.04.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 12.04.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
