BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/ 628 of 4.8.2010 Decided on: 12.5.2011 Balwinder Singh S/o Sh.Prittam Singh R/o Vill.Rakhra Distt. Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. The General Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co, Ltd. Plot No.2, Ist Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala 147001. 2. The General Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., State Bank Bhawan, Corporate Centre, MC Road, Mumbai-21, 2nd Floor, Turner Morrison Building, GN Vaidya Marg,Mumbai-400023. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Harish Ahuja, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Puneet Gupta , Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased an insurance policy no.060-11803-704 in July 2005 for a value of Rs.6lacs for a period of 20 years, the mode of the payment of the premium of Rs.25068/- being annual. 2. It is averred by the complainant that he had paid the premiums as per the policy. However, he could not continue with the policy because of his having suffered a health problem and consequently financial crises. The complainant approached the ops for the surrender of the policy and to return him the amount of premium already paid. The op no.1 got written application from the complainant and also obtained signatures on some papers and assured that the amount of the premium already deposited would be sent to him by post through a cheque within a period of six months. However, the complainant failed to receive any cheque within the said period, when the complainant again visited the ops, they again assured the complainant to refund the amount of the premium through a cheque within a period of some months. The complainant had again visited the office of the ops on account of his having not received the cheque, but again the ops made a false promise to make the payment. Every time the complainant approached the ops, they put the matter off under one or the other pretext. Ultimately, the complainant got the ops served with a legal notice dated 18.5.2010 but to no effect. Consequently, he approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) 3. On notice the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is submitted by the ops that the complainant had purchased Sudarshan Plan A policy no.06011803704 to be effective from 2.7.2005 for a basic sum assured of Rs.6 lacs with the benefit of accidental death or TPD rider of Rs.6 lacs. As per the policy the annual renewal premium was payable on 2nd of July of each year. However, the complainant failed to pay the subsequent renewal premiums and therefore, the policy of the complainant had lapsed w.e.f.2.7.2006. 4. The ops have denied the complainant having approached them at any point of time after lapse of four years from the date of the first un paid premium due on 2.7.2006 and therefore, the enforcement of the insurance contract is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Act. He has not filed any application for condonation of delay alongwith the complaint. 5. It is further averred by the ops that according to schedule II part IV clause(b) “if the term of the policy is 6 years and above, the policy will acquire guaranteed surrender value on completion of third policy anniversary date, provided all the premiums dues during the first 36 months are paid and the policy is in force for basic sum assured”. Since the complainant had paid only one premium and as a result the policy had lapsed w.e.f.2.7.2006 and therefore, nothing is payable under the policy to the complainant. 6. The ops admitted having received the legal notice dated 18.5.2010 which was duly replied by them on 3.6.2010.Ultimately the ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. To substantiate his claim, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.CW1 alongwith documents CW1/A,CW1/B and Exs.C2 to C5 and his learned counsel closed the evidence. 8. On behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of Mr.V.Srinivas, the authorized representative of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R4 and closed the evidence. 9. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence/record on the file. 10. ` It is the case of the ops that the complainant had not deposited the annual renewal premium due on 2.7.2006 and therefore, the policy had lapsed on 2.7.2006.On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that he had approached the ops for surrender of the policy. The officials of the ops had obtained written application from the complainant and also obtained his signatures on some papers and assured him that the amount of the premiums already deposited in respect of the policy would be sent to him through a cheque within a period of 6 months. No where the complainant has made a mention about the date, month and the year when he had approached the ops and given an application in writing for the surrender of the policy. The complainant has produced the photo copies of the applications dated 11.7.2005, 1.12.2006,4.4.2007 and 16.1.2009(copies Exs.C2 to C5 respectively) to have been submitted before op no.1 for closing the policy. The ops have categorically denied having received any such written request from the complainant. It is not possible for us to accept the applications,Exs.C2 to C5, so as to say that the same were submitted by the complainant to op no.1 especially when the reference of the same does not find mention in the legal notice dated 18.5.2010, placed on file alongwith postal receipts, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the ops. Had the reference of the said applications been made in the notice dated 18.5.2010, the ops would have commented on the same in the reply,Ex.R4 given by them to the said legal notice dated 18.5.2010. 11. Apparently, the applications,Exs.C2 to C5 can be said to have been manipulated by the complainant to over come the bar of the limitation in the matter of filing the complaint. Since the policy of the complainant had lapsed on 2.7.2006, the complainant was obliged to approach the Forum within a period of two years w.e.f.2.7.2006, but he approached this Forum only on 4.8.2010.No application was filed by the complainant to condone the delay. 12. Even if ,for the sake of arguments, the complaint is taken to be maintainable being within limitation, the policy of the complainant having lapsed on 2.7.2006, he is not entitled to any surrender value of the same. It is provided under part (iii) of the schedule containing the terms and conditions in clause 5(b) under head “Guaranteed Surrender Value, “A policy for a term of 6 years or more will acquire guaranteed surrender value after premiums have been paid in full or three consecutive years. A policy for a term less than six years will acquire guaranteed surrender value after premium has been paid for one year. The guaranteed surrender values payable are indicated in part iv of the schedule. A policy which has acquired a guaranteed surrender value may be surrendered for cash. The surrender of a policy shall extinguish all rights, benefits and interest to whomsoever it may belong under the policy”. In part (iv) of the schedule in clause (b) which pertains to the term of the policy for a period of 6 years and above, it is provided “The policy will acquire guaranteed surrender value on completion of 3rd year policy anniversary date, provided all premiums due during the first 36 months are paid and the policy is in force for the full basic sum assured. The guaranteed surrender value will be equal to 65% of the premium paid for the basic sum assured less the first year premium paid .Cash value of any existing vested bonuses will be paid alongwith the surrender value” Therefore, in view of the aforesaid terms and conditions contained in the Sudarshan Policy A (Ex.CW1/B) it would appear that the term of the policy being 20 years, the complainant could claim the surrender value only in case he had deposited the premium due during the 36 months and the policy remained in force for the full basic sum assured at the time of the surrender. Admittedly the complainant had deposited only the initial premium of Rs.25068/-, which in the proposal form,Exs.CW1/A has been mentioned as Rs.26780/- at the time of purchasing the policy and thereafter, he had not deposited the premium due on 2.7.2006 and therefore, the policy had lapsed and consequently he could not claim any surrender value of the same. In any case, we do not fin any deficiency in service on the part of the ops as the complainant never applied for the payment of the surrender value. 13. As an up shot of our above discussion, it would appear that not only the complaint is found to be barred by limitation, there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:12.5.2011 Neelam Gupta Amarjit Singh Dhindsa D.R.Arora Member Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | |
