Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/93/2014

Ajay Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Comp. in person

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/93/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19/02/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	17.08.2015

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Ajay Gupta son of Mr.Nand Kishore, Resident of Street No.4-B, Guru Angad Nagar, Muktsar – 152026, now residing at Flat No.201, Tower No.26, Royale Estate, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

2]  Poonam Gupta wife of Mr.Ajay Gupta, Resident of Street No.4-B, Guru Angad Nagar, Muktsar – 152026, now residing at Flat No.201, Tower No.26, Royale Estate, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1]  Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.149-150, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

 

2]  Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, One India Bulls Centre, Tower 1st, 15th & 16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013

 

3]  Ms.Parul – Insurance Advisor Code : AV6520, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Gees Mall, The Mall, Bhatinda (Punjab)

 

…. Opposite Parties  

 

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA         MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Karan S. Gill, Counsel for complainant.  

Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party-3 exparte.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

         

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and took objection that the this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint ,as the complainants have filled the proposal forms in Muktsar (Punjab), premium was paid through bank at Muktsar, medical examination of the complainant were conducted at Muktsar, the insurance policies were issued from Mumbai, the complainants are also resident of District Mohali, therefore, no cause of action ever arose to the complainants within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Chandigarh. The issuance of the policies in question and receipt of the premium amount is admitted. It is pleaded that the policies were issued to the complainants as proposed by them after understanding all the terms & conditions of the policy as well as signing of the declarations.  It is also pleaded that it has been admitted by the complainants that they have received the policies and if the complainants had any grievance against the OPs No.1 & 2, then he could have surrendered the policy within 15 days i.e. within the free look in period.  It is stated that the IRDA Notification dated 01.07.2010 as relied upon by the complainants is not applicable to the policies in question.  It is also stated that the charges which have been levied are as per the terms & conditions of the policies.  It is submitted that the insurance policies of the complainants got lapsed due to non-payment of premiums and therefore, cheques towards surrender value was sent to them by the answering OPs.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainants have preferred the present joint complaint on the ground of mis-selling of the insurance policies subscribed in the year 28^th Dec., 2009 and other allegations.  However, from the perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainants, they had preferred to surrender the policies in question in the year 2010 through their communications dated 28.3.2010 and 08.04.2010.  At the same time, after having opted for the surrender of the policies, they had even paid renewal premium on 28^th Dec., 2010 in each of these policies.  However, thereafter they approached Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman on 20.11.2011 and the Ld.Ombudsman vide its order dated 20.2.2013 dismissed their complaints.  The complainants served legal notices dated 31.3.2013 upon the OPs raising their grouses against the OPs. 

 

6]       The complainants have also placed on record the proof of payments, which the Opposite Parties have released on 2.5.2013 citing the reason being “surrender value”.  These payments too have been challenged by the complainants being far less than the amount of premium paid by them, while filing present complaint. 

 

7]       Therefore, there are two different sets of cause of actions in the present complaint, each of which deserve to be dealt with on the point of maintainability before going into the merits of the complaint. 

 

8]       The first cause of action with regard to the mis-selling of the policy raised by them in the year 2010 and against which they preferred to raise the matter with the Opposite Parties through legal notice dated 31.3.2013 is barred by limitation, as the same has been made part of the present complaint filed on 19.2.2014 is much after the stipulated period of two (02) years as mandated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

9]       The second cause of action with regard to the payment of lesser amount of surrender value by the Opposite Parties through their communications dated 2^nd May, 2013, the complainants have not raised their grouse with the Opposite Parties citing any reason as to on what basis their demand of refund of entire premium was genuine and just. The complainants have also not disclosed that at the time of receiving the bank instruments dated 2^nd May, 2013, they had raised their objection before depositing these cheques in their accounts. It was required that the OPs should have been cautioned that the complainants reserve their right to raise the matter later on, at an appropriate time, to their convenience before depositing the amounts in their accounts.  Therefore, the complainants without having raised their grievance with the OPs with regard to short payment of surrender value without giving their objections, cannot claim any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs without raising the matter with them and their being a palpable inaction on the part of the OPs giving rise to a fresh cause of action against them.

 

10]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves dismissal on account of being not maintainable on the cause of action which had accrued in the year 2010 and also for want of cause of action with regard to the payment of surrender value.  Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

                 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th August, 2015                 

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.93 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 17th day of August, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member