1. The fact of the case of complainant is a saving bank account holder under O.P. No.1 vide account no. 914010036911588 and as per personal approach of O.P. No.1, he purchased one insurance policy named “Max Life Life Gain Premier” on 09.02.2015 vide policy no. 268194768 with premium of Rs. 25,000/- and the repesentative Santosh Kumar Acharya of O.P. No.1 assured that after deposit of 1^st premium, it is not mandatory to deposit the onward premiums and after  completion of 3^rd year, the said policy can be surrendered and in return complainant will get total surrender value with vested bonus.It is alleged that after deposit of the 3^rd year, he approached the O.P. No.1 for surrender of the said policy and handed over all the documents, but O.P. No.1 with one pretext or the other has lingered the matter, thus on March 2018 he contacted with the O.P. No.2 who replied that since no further premium amount was paid after completion of 1^st year no surrender value will be payable.  Further allegation of complainant is that on August, 2018 he contacted with the O.P. No.1 regarding the matter, but fruitful result came out and no intimation was sent to him for deposit of further premiums.  Thus showing deficiency in service, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the entire deposited amount with interest and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed their written statement stating only single line as “Complainant u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by Mr. Subrat Padhiary.  This case has been handled by O.P. No. 2 i.e. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. directly and Axis Bank is corporate agent of it”.  Without any other contradictory contention, they prayed to close the case.

3. O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case and filed their counter version admitting issue of alleged policy in favour of complainant, but have denied the allegations of the complainant contending that the present complaint is not maintainable on the point of limitation as the complainant has contacted with them on March 2018 and the present case is filed on 28.12.2020.  Further contended that complainant met the O.P. No. 1 in the month of August, 2018 and was informed that the policy cannot be processed as he failed to pay the premiums as per the terms of the policy.  Further contended that they have sent letter from time to time on various date regarding payment of further premiums, thus showing their no liability and with contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations.  Whereas the O.Ps did not choose file any single documents in support of their contentions.  Heard from the complainant and A/R of O.Ps. No. 1 & 2.  Perused the case record and documents available therein.

5. From the documents and submissions of parties, it is ascertained that issue of alleged insurance policy in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact.  The allegation of complainant is that one Santosh Kumar Acharya, the representative of the O.P. No.1 has assured that after depositing the 1^st premium, it is not mandatory to deposit further premiums and at any time he can surrender the alleged policy, but after completion of 3^rd years, while on asking for surrender of the policy by submitting all the original documents, the O.Ps have denied to release the surrender value, whereas the only contention of O.P. No.1 is that they are the corporate agent of O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.2 is dealing with the case.  It is seen from the counter version of O.P. No.1 that though they have admitted their corporate agentship under O.P. No.2 but did not choose to bring out any contradiction to the allegations of the complainant and remained silent over the subject matter.  Hence all the allegations made against the O.P. No. 1 is remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  In this connection, we have fortified with by the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” 

6. Further it is ascertained from the contention of O.P. No.2 is that they have challenged the status of the case on the point of limitation stating that the complainant has contacted with them on March 2018 and complainant met the O.P. No.1 in the month of August, 2018 and the present case is filed on 28.12.2020, which is barred by limitation.  But the O.P. No. 2 have forgotton that after completion of 3^rd year of the policy, their corporate agent i.e. O.P. No.1 has already received all the original documents from the complainant to surrender the alleged policy, which is never challenged by any of the O.Ps.Hence, it was the duty of O.P. No.2 that prior to submit their version, first they should confirm the same from their corporate agent i.e. O.P. No.1 that whether they have received any documents from the complainant or not.Further the concerned agent i.e. O.P. No.1 is belonged to banking sector and in our view, they must have kept each and every documents received by them, as such the O.P.No.2 should obtain the confirmation or any statement from the O.P. No.1 to prove their contentions and without any cogent evidence the plea of limitation cannot be sustained and complainant being a customer of both the O.Ps is a consumer and the cause of action is continuing till date and point of limitation does not attract in the present case.

7. Further it is ascertained from the record that the allegation of complainant is that neither O.Ps have issued any intimation for further deposit of premiums after the completion of 1^st policy year, whereas the O.P. No.2 has contended that they have communicated through several letters on different date to the complainant.  But the O.P. No. 2 has miserably failed to produce any such letters / documents to prove their contentions though 5 months have already been passed from the date of filing of the present complaint.  Hence we feel, the O.P. No. 2, only to save their skin, have taken the plea of sending letters, which cannot help them at any angle.    

8. Further from the counter of O.P. No.1, it is ascertained that they are the corporate agent of O.P. No.2, hence it is the prime duty of the O.P. No. 1 to intimate the O.P. No.2 regarding the surrender of the alleged policy whenever they have received the documents from the complainant for surrender, but forgetting their duties to provide better service, they kept silent, which resulted this dispute.
    
9. Further it is seen that on many instances that only due to the improper services of the agent, the insurance companies are suffering heavily on socially and financially and to increase their business volume, generally agents follow wrong procedure to motivate the customers by forgetting their duties to provide services. And in the instant case also the same is happened.  Further it is well settled of law that for any act of agent, the company is solely liable to for any sufferings and loss.  Catena of verdicts of Higher Forums also have viewed the same.

10. Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried her level best to get back his deposited premium from the O.Ps., but failed, for which he was compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such he is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering his suffering, we feel Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                             ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 being the insurer of alleged policy is herewith directed to refund  the deposited surrender value to the complainant with prevailing bank interest from March, 2016 till filing of the case alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the deposited amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment. 

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 3^rd day of June, 2021. Issue free copy to the parties concerned.