Haryana

Karnal

CC/42/2015

Ramdyal S/o Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Subhash Chander

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 42 of 2015

                                                    Date of instt. 12.03.2015

                                                     Date of decision 05.12.2017

 

Ramdyal son of Shri Phool Singh resident of VPO Dabkoli Kalan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

The Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCF-138, Ground Floor, Sector-13, Market, HUDA, Karnal.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……….Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri S.C.Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had taken a Life Insurance Policy from OP, vide policy no.003767485 and an amount of Rs.15000/- half yearly installment and the complainant had paid/deposited Rs.90,000/- so far and has continued the abovesaid policy for three years with the OP. Now three years has been elapsed and he does not want to keep the said policy in future and he has surrendered the policy and has written application on 22.8.2014 to the OP that he has deposited amount of Rs.90000/- may kindly be refunded after deducting the reasonable charges and expenses. He had served a registered legal notice to the OP for demanding his amount back and also for surrendering the aforesaid policy, but OP refused to pay the said amount. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that after taking the said policy and making the payment of the first year premium the due date for making the further renewal premium was after every six months. The complainant miserably failed to pay the regular renewal premium, as such the said policy was lapsed on July 28, 2010. Thereafter, it was revived on July 31, 2010. Again the policy was lapsed on 28.7.2011 due to non-payment of renewal premium payment and it was again revised on August, 2011. Further the policy was lapsed on 28 January 2012 and lateron after paying the renewal premium on the request of complainant, the same was revived on 22.2.2012. The complainant failed to adhere the abovesaid conditions of the insurance contract but the OP always inspirit of agreement tried to prolong the relations and gave opportunity to the complainant to continue the relationship. Thereafter, complainant failed to deposit the further premium and after 15^th October, 2012 no premium under the policy was received as such the policy was terminated after giving notices to complainant. In view of terms and conditions of the policy, the renewal premium was not paid for continue two years as such the policy acquired the status of terminated policy. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 10.2.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Aakriti Manocha Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 3.8.2016.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant had taken a Life Insurance Policy no.003767485 from OP and the half yearly installment was Rs.15000/- and the complainant had paid the premium for three years and continued the said policy for three years. According to the complainant, he (complainant) does not want to continue the policy and so he has surrendered the policy after the lapse of three years, vide written application dated 22.8.2014. The complainant has served a registered A.D. legal notice to the OP but the OP refused to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant is fully entitled to get the amount back from OP with interest @ 18% per annum.

7.             Whereas according to the OP, the complainant had not deposited the installment in time and due to this reason the policy in question was lapsed on July 28, 2010. Thereafter, it was revived on July 31, 2010. Similarly, policy was again lapsed on 28.7.2011 and the same was revived on August 2011. Then again the policy lapsed on 28.1.2012 and revived on 22.2.2012. The complainant has paid no premium after 15.10.2012 and as such the policy was terminated after giving notice to the complainant.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has deposited premium for three years and admittedly no premium was paid by the complainant after 15.10.2012. The complainant has surrendered the policy, vide application dated 28.8.2014 and copy of the same is Ex.C-8. At the time of agreement, the complainant produced the postal receipt to show that the surrender application was sent to the OP. The OP has placed on the file (though not exhibited) “Basic Policy Information” from this it is clear that the OP has shown the surrender on 28.1.2015. But according to Ex.C-8, it is clear that the complainant had surrendered the policy on 28.8.2014. Therefore, the surrender date should have been taken by the OP as on 28.8.2014 instead of 28.1.2015. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP has wrongly taken the date of surrender as 28.1.2015 whereas the same should be 28.8.2014. Hence the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to consider the date of surrender of the policy on 28.8.2014 and then re-settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and pay the surrender value, if any, of the policy in question. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:5.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                   (Anil Sharma)       (Veena Rani)           

                        Member                Member