PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had taken policy bearing No.003635909 for Rs.1,00,034/- and Policy No.003635911 for Rs.75,000/- from the opponent/Insurance Company through agent Mrs.Sujata Sawant.  He was told that those were one time premium policies.  The complainant was out of India.  When he returned back to India, he found that the policies were lapsed due to non payment of premium as those were not one time premium policies.  The agent has misguided the complainant for her own benefit.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of his amount of Rs.1,75,034/- with interest.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2)                The opponent/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the claim is barred by limitation. Two policies were issued on 14^th December, 2009 and 28^th December, 2009 in the name of Nilesh Pandurang Patil and Ashalata Pandurang Patil.  The policy documents were sent to the complainant along with terms and conditions of the policies and covering letter.  The premium was annual and not one time premium.  Free look period of fifteen days was given to the complainant for cancellation but the complainant failed to exercise his right.  The complainant failed to pay premium therefore the policies were lapsed.  Notices and reminders were issued to the complainant.  The surrender value of Rs.36,233.09/- and Rs.50,262.21/- was deposited in the bank account of the policy holder.  The complainant has filed this complaint after two years.  Therefore, it is apparently barred by limitation.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed. 

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 :- The complainant himself has produced the copies  of covering letters dated 19^th December, 2009 and 6^th January, 2010 with premium payment receipts and policy documents along with the complaint.  In covering letters, free look period of fifteen days was given to the complainant.  The complainant has not exercised his right under the free look period.  The policies were issued in the year-2009 and 2010 and the complaint is filed in the year-2015.  It is apparently barred by limitation.  The complainant has filed copy of notice issued in the year-2015.  It is settled law that exchange of correspondence will not extend the period of limitation.  The covering letters issued by the opponent were received by the complainant in the year-2009 and 2010 along with the policy documents. The complainant was knowing the contents of policies in the year-2009 and 2010. Therefore, the complaint is apparently barred by limitation. It is settled law that mere correspondence will not extend the period of limitation.  For this purpose, we would like to reply upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2013) CPJ 419 (NC) in Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2011, in the case of V.K.Appliances –Versus- New India Assurance Company Limited, decided on 1^st October, 2013. In para 3 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :

Para 3. Instead of touching  the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for the complainant  attempted  to  skirt it.  It is well settled  that  letters, notices do not  extend  the  time  of  limitation.  The  case  must be  filed within  two  years’  from  the  date  of  repudiation of claim.  Again, the ‘sufficient cause’ cannot  be  erased from  Section 5 of  the Limitation Act  by adopting excessive  liberal  approach  which  would defeat  the  very  purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  There must be some cause, which can be termed  as  ‘sufficient cause’, for the purpose of delay of condonation. 

In para 6 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has further laid down as under :

Para 6. Recently, in a case, titled as Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (I) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9307 of 2013 filed by petitioner, Dolhpin Offshore  Enterprises  (I) Ltd., decided on 08.03.2013,   was  pleased  to hold :-

“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and  perused  the  record.  In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission,  for  holding  that the complaint was  barred  by time,  are correct.  It is not in dispute that  the  claim  made by the petitioner was repudiated by the  respondent, vide communication dated 30.10.2002, and the complaint was filed on  25.05.2006, i.e., after  three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time.  This view finds support from the judgments of this court in HUDA Vs. B.K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164, SBI Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53”.

In view of the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, the present complaint is barred by limitation.

5) As to Point No.2 & 3  :-  According to the complainant, he was told that the policies are one time premium payments.  Admittedly, the complainant received the policy documents along with covering letters in the year-2009 and 2010.  It was necessary for him to go through the covering letters and the policy documents.  The premium payment receipts and the policy documents clearly show that it was annual premium payment policies.  The amount paid by the complainant was shown against the first premium payment.  There is no ambiguity in the documents produced by the complainant himself.  Therefore, the submission of the complainant that he was told about the one time premium payment can not be accepted.  Admittedly, the complainant failed to pay the annual premium.  Therefore, the policies were lapsed.  According to the opponent, surrender value of the policies was deposited in the bank account of policy holder.  This fact is not disputed by the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 9^th February, 2016