DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.239 of 2012
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 01.06.2012
DATE OF ORDER: - 08.06.2016
Parminder Singh son of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, C/o Krishna Battery House, Near Surya Banquet Hall, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Kamla Place, 57-60 Kamla Nagar, Red Square Market, Hisar.
- The Manager, H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., City Mall, Near Adarsh College, Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
…….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Shankar Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satpal Boora, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had taken a policy no. 11420018 dated 04.12.2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is alleged that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- on dated 04.12.2007 as Ist Installment of his policy. It is alleged that neither the respondent’s company informed about the depositing of the installment to the complainant by sending letter nor the agent of the company was ever came to the complainant for taking installment in respect of aforesaid policy, due to which complainant did not deposit the installment & due to busy in his business the complainant could not visit in the office of OP no. 2 to deposit the amount of installment. It is alleged that visited to the office of OP no. 2 and tried to deposit the installment, but the officials of OP no. 2 told to the complainant that your policy has been closed. It is alleged that he served a legal notice dated 04.11.2011 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the proposal form in the present case was signed by the complainant on 28.11.2007 and the policy in question i.e. policy No. 11420018 commenced on 04.12.2007 and due to non-payment of next annual premium, the insurance policy of the complainant lapsed in December 2008, therefore, if the complainant had any grievance then the cause of action to file the present complaint accrued to the complainant lastly on 04.12.2010 but the present complaint has been instituted in December 2013 i.e. after delay of 3 years. It is submitted that when the policy has already been lapsed and the complainant has already taken all the benefits of the policy for the period for which he had paid the premium. It is submitted that the aforesaid insurance policy is a unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through Share Market/speculative transactions and main motive for investment is for profit and gains. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith affidavit Mark A.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties have placed on record Exhibit OP-1 to Exhibit OP-8.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the first premium of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the complainant on 04.12.2007 and thereafter the premium have to be received by the agent of the company from the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant due to busy in his business could not deposit the further premiums. On his visit, the complainant was informed by the OP that due to non-payment of the premiums his policy has been closed and it cannot be started again. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 04.11.2011, copy of which is Annexure C2.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that due to non-payment of further premium, insurance policy in question of the complainant lapsed in December 2008 and no amount under said policy is payable to the complainant. He further submitted that the present complaint of the complainant is time barred because the present complaint has been instituted on 01.06.2012 beyond the prescribed limitation period of 2 years under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the OP further submitted that even otherwise the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the premium after the lapse of the policy and after enjoying the insurance cover. No surrender value has accrued under the policy because minimum 3 premiums have to be paid to acquire surrender value. He has also referred the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:-
I State Bank of India Versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) 2009 (5) SCC 121.
II Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus B.K. Sood 2006 (1) SCC 164.
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. Admittedly, first premium was paid by the complainant on 04.12.2007 and no further premium has been paid by the complainant on the due dates in the insurance policy issued by the OP in favour of the complainant. According to OP the policy of the complainant lapsed in December 2008 due to the non-payment of the premium, and as such the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 04.12.2008 and the present complaint has been filed on 01.06.2012 which is hopelessly time barred. We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the OP that the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 04.12.2008. In view of the provision of Section 24 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act the present complaint of the complainant is time barred. The contention of the counsel for the OP that no surrender value has accrued to the complainant only after the payment of single premium. The complainant cannot ask for the refund of the premium after the lapse of the policy, is tenable. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:08.06.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
