DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/87

Date of Institution : 08.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 02.08.2022

Smt. Meenu Sehgal wife of Shri Deepak Sehgal resident of H. No. 32, Mahindra Colony, MC No. 42, Tehsil and District Amritsar. …Complainant

Versus

Canara HSBC Life Insurance Company Limited, Now Known as Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager/Authorized Officer/Person Incharge, having its office at United Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. 

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986

Present: Smt. Meenu Sehgal complainant in person. 

Sh. Nitesh Singhi Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Canara HSBC Life Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased one life insurance policy in her name from the opposite party bearing policy No. 0002638014 under the name Canara HSBC Life Unit Linked Whole Life Plan which was commenced on 9.3.2009 and premium of said policy was Rs. 25,000/- per year. At the time of obtaining the said insurance policy the complainant paid one premium to the opposite party and the next premium was also give to the opposite party in the year 2010. At the time of obtaining of said policy the agent of the opposite party had assured the complainant that there is two years lock period and during this period the complainant cannot withdraw the said insurance policy. After obtaining the said policy the complainant realized that the said insurance policy is not suitable to her and complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- but the opposite party did not adhere the request of the complainant. The complainant visiting the office of the opposite party regularly and ultimately in the month of March 2016 the opposite party issued a cheque in favour of complainant for Rs. 5,626-75 paise. The complainant had paid Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party and opposite party was required to repay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest but the opposite party refused to refund the said amount which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till actual realization.      

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension.

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complainant submitted duly proposal form after understanding the terms and conditions of policy which were duly communicated to the complainant. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party was ready to cancel the policy of the complainant and ready to refund the premium so received to the complainant. The complainant out of her free will opted for the policy in question. The policy documents were duly sent to the complainant which was received by her. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The contract of insurance is an agreement between the proposer and the insurance company where in both the parties to the contract abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. Further, the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable. The present complaint is misuse of the legal process. The complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant herself approached the answering opposite party for the purpose of purchasing an insurance policy where she meet the representative of opposite party who explained the different insurance plan to the complainant and thereafter the life assured with her sweet will opted for an insurance policy namely Canara HSBC Life Unit Link Whole Life Plan after going through the terms and conditions of the same. The LA herself submitted her duly signed proposal form and on the basis of the same the policy was issued to her. The LA had proposed to take the said policy by way of proposal form dated 3.3.2009 under which total sum assured was Rs. 1,25,000/- and policy term was 63 premium paying 5, term model premium was Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant had paid the premium for the year 2010 as well and hence total premium of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the complainant and thereafter no premium was ever paid by her so the policy got lapsed and later on policy got terminated and termination payout of Rs. 5,626.75 was paid to the complainant by way of cheque dated 11.3.2016 and receipt of cheque has been admitted by the complainant. The same was delivered to her on 15.3.2016 and complaint has been filed on 22.3.2018 which is out of limitation period under Consumer Protection Act. So, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Further, the complainant had not encashed the said amount of Rs. 5,626.75 and finally only on the request of the complainant the amount of Rs. 5,800.52 i.e. alongwith up to date interest was remitted in the account of the complainant by way of NEFT on 16.12.2016. Rest of the submissions already mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same and opposite party lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-2, copy of payment advice Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of aadhaar card Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence copy of proposal form Ex.OP-1, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP-2, copy of policy documents Ex.OP-3, copy of statement of account Ex.OP-4, copy of first premium receipt Ex.OP-5, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-6, copy of sales illustration Ex.OP-7, copy of payment advice Ex.OP-8 and evidence of the opposite party was closed by order vide order dated 23.8.2018.  

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party.

8. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased life insurance policy from the opposite party under the name Canara HSBC Life Unit Linked Whole Life Plan on 9.3.2009 and premium of the said policy was Rs. 25,000/- per year. It is also admitted by both the parties that the complainant paid two premiums of the said policy i.e in the year 2009 and 2010. It is mentioned by the complainant in her complaint that the opposite party issued a cheque in her favour for Rs. 5,626.75 paise. The complainant herself argued that she paid Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party and opposite party was required to repay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest but they refused to refund the said amount which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant submitted duly proposal form after understanding the terms and conditions of policy. He further argued that the policy documents were duly sent to the complainant which was received by her and she opted insurance policy namely Canara HSBC Life Unit Link Whole Life Plan after going through the terms and conditions of the same. He further argued that the complainant had paid the premium for the year 2010 as well and hence total premium of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the complainant and thereafter no premium was ever paid by her so the policy got lapsed and later on policy got terminated and termination payout of Rs. 5,626.75 was paid to the complainant by way of cheque dated 11.3.2016 and receipt of cheque has been admitted by the complainant and when the complainant had not encashed the said amount of Rs. 5,626.75 and finally only on the request of the complainant the amount of Rs. 5,800.52 i.e. alongwith up to date interest was remitted in the account of the complainant by way of NEFT on 16.12.2016. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10. From the policy schedule Ex.OP-3 it is proved on the file that policy term is 63 whereas premium paying term was 5 years and there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant had only paid two premiums of Rs. 25,000/- each and after that she had not paid any premium to the opposite party, so the policy got lapsed due to non payment of further premium. The complainant failed to prove on the file by way of any evidence that the lock in period of the policy was two years. The opposite party also mentioned in their written version that they had paid Rs. 5,800.52 paise to the complainant by way of NEFT which fact is also not denied by the complainant and also not proved on the file if she received the said amount under protest. In our view, as the policy got lapsed due to fault of complainant and she already received the last value of the policy from the opposite party without any protest, so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        2nd Day of August 2022

 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member