Delhi

New Delhi

CC/468/2015

Pranab Thareja - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

                                                                               C C. NO.468/2015

 

In the matter of:

 

PRANAB THAREJA

S/o SH. PRITHVI RAJ THAREJA

R/O 11/7, EAST PATEL NAGAR,

NEW DELHI- 110008                                              ……..Complainant

VERSUS

DLF PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001                                               ………Opposite Party

 

CORAM : SH. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

 

                                                         Date of Institution: 21.07.2015

                                                          Date of Order       : 23.11.2022

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant has opted an insurance policy/ product “DLF PRAMERICA DHAN SURAKSHA” vide proposal form bearing no. AF000 885378 dated 19.07.2012. In the said proposal form complainant is life Assured/LA and his mother Ms. Ritu Thareja is the nominee, for a sum of assured of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupee Nine Lakhs only) for which a premium amounting to Rs. 98,190/- (Rupee Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety Only) was proposed to be paid annually for the period of 20 years and the coverage term is 20 years. Under the plan the complainant life is assured for 20 years and maturity benefit is of Rs. 22,95,000/- (Rs, Twenty Two lakhs ninety Five thousand Only) and apart from this benefit of accidental coverage is of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupee. Nine Lakhs Only). After receiving the premium OP has issued the policy bearing no. 000159343 with the commencement date as of 25.07.2012. It is stated that complainant paid a sum of Rs. 99,707/- as premium to the OP vide cheque bearing no. 00404 dated 12.07.2012, duly encashed by the OP, the complainant did not receive the said policy. It is stated by the complainant that complainant made several efforts to find out the status of the said policy but no avail. Complainant wrote a letter dated 29.03.2015 sought to know the status of the said policy, however till date the same was not provided to the complainant.
2. It was further stated that OP was deficient, in rendering service as also indulge into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative the complaint was filed. It is prayed to direct the OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of negligence of the OP with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment along with a sum of Rs.99,707/- of the refund of the premium of the policy at the interest rate of 18% per annum along with cost of the proceedings.
3. Notice was issued, ccomplaint has been contested by OP. In its written statement, preliminary objection was raised that the complaint is bard by law of limitation as the present complaint is filed on July 2015 which is based on the ground or as per complainant cheque dated 12.07.2012 was procured by the OP and policy dated 25.07.2012 was issued, however the policy was lapsed on 24.08.2013 for non-payment of second due premium. It is stated that complainant is bard by law of limitation u/s 24 A of the CP Act, 1986. OP stated that complainant himself approached them for purchase of the insurance policy, in question, which was issued to him with an annual premium of Rs. 98,190/- for the period of 20 years. It was further stated that policy bearing no. 000159343 with the commencement date as of 25.07.2012. Thereafter the policy documents along with the schedule, the terms and condition thereto and a welcome letter were sent to the policy holder (hereinafter referred to as “Life Assured” or “LA”) On 25.07.2012 through courier DTDC vide no. DTDC-Z69268865 dated 27.07.2012, which was duly delivered to the address of the policy holder on 28.07.2012. It is further stated that OP neither received any query nor any complaint during the free look period of 15 days as per IRDAI regulation 2002.
4. It is stated by the OP that the complainant again issued a cheque 19.07.2013 for the sum of Rs.99,500/- for the second yearly premium, the said fact is relevant and evident to prove that complainant was fully aware of the policy term and annual premium and fully satisfied by the policy. The OP issued a renewal letter and renewal follow up letter inform the complainant to pay the renewal premium, the complainant stop the payment of the said cheque dated 19.07.2013 and the said cheque got dishonored, OP sent the information of cheque dishonored to the complainant and has also sent the policy lapse notice to the complainant.
5. Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his evidence by affidavit and also filed written submission. The complainant placed on record only single document letter dated 29.03.2015 Annexure C-1 at page no. 8. In other hand, OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Senior Manager Legal and duly constituted Attorney dated 20.07.2016.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties, and have gone through the evidences and record of the case carefully.
7. The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant paid the amount through cheque dated 12.07.2012 for the purchase of the insurance policy, in question, with an annual premium of Rs 98,190/- for a period of 20 years but the opposite party did not issue him any policy document nor any steps were taken to redress his grievance.
8. After giving over thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the counsel for the OP and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that complainant was palpably barred by time. The complainant purchase the policy on 12.07.2012 and he complaint to the OP regarding the non-receipt of the same for the first  time on 29.03.2015 (Annexure C-1) i.e. after the lapse of more than 2 years. In case the complainant had not received the policy, he was required to write a letter to OP after waiting for about a month that the policy document be sent to him.
9. In this case, the complainant has issued a cheque dated 19.07.2013 for the sum of Rs.99,500/- for the second yearly premium (Annexure OP-5 with Dishonor  Return Memo), the application form was duly filed by the Life insured by thoroughly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, on perusal of application form Annexure OP-1 the complainant had given all relevant details and information and duly signed the proposal form, the complainant at the time of opting for the policy, was working as a senior Wisher with Indian Air Lines and completely understanding the terms and condition of the Insurance Product/policy, Hence he was much aware of the same. Reliance was placed in Prema & Ors. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Lts. IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) wherein the Hon`ble National Commission has held that “it could not be believed that he had simply put his signature on different proposal forms without understanding the contents”.
10. The complainant placed on record only single document letter dated 29.03.2015 Annexure C-1 at page no. 8 in support of his case. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that  “the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service”. The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66 wherein it held that “the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it”.
11. The Counsel for the OP relied the identical judgment passed by Hon`ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case title Avtar Singh Dhillon vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance decided on 10 July 2012 held that “The cause of action arose to the complainant on the date of purchase of the policy. According to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he could file a complaint u/s 12 of CP Act for redressal of grievance, within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action”.
12. The cause of action arose to the complainant on the date of purchase of the policy. According to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he could file a complaint u/s 12 of CP Act for redressal of grievance, within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The complaint having been filed on 21.07.2015, was palpably barred by time. Not only this, as evident from the averments contend in the complaint and conceded by the counsel for complainant, at the time of arguments, only one annual premium of Rs. 98,190/- was paid by the complainant on 19.07.2012. The term of the policy, and the annual premium was Rs.98,190/-. The complainant only paid one premium. He did not pay premium for 3 years continuously, and wrote a letter dated 29.03.2015 (Annexure C-1), for the first time. The opposite party wrote a letter dated 25.07.2013, to the complainant that on account of non-payment of second annual payment which was due on 24.07.2013 the policy lapsed vide lapse notice/letter dated 24.08.2013, the complainant was also informed that, in case, he wanted to revival of the policy, he could do so, making payment of Rs.102975/-. The complainant, however, failed to accept this offer of the Opposite Party. Since the policy had lapsed in 24.08.2013, and the complainant was not willing for revival of the same, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Annexure- OP-3, he was not entitled to the refund of the amount claimed by him, in the complaint. There was, thus no deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party.

In view of the above facts and finding on record the complaint is dismissed in limine, but without any order as to costs.

Order accordingly. Office is directed to send one true copy of this order to the parties/speed post in accordance with the rules. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in). Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this   23^rd   Day of  November, 2022.

 

 

(POONAM CHADHARY)

President

 

                                               

(BARIQ AHMAD)                                

                                                    Member