DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.500 of 12-10-2011
Decided on 31-01-2012
Gurcharan Singh Sidhu, aged about 52 years, son of Sh. Zora Singh, Resident of Natt Road, Near Sidhu Nursing Home,
Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation,
Mumbai-400020, through its Managing Director.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Fir Master Trust Building, SCO-19, Feroze Gandhi Market, Opp.
Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana-141041, through its Divisional Manager.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Near New Bus Stand, G.T.Road, Bathinda, through its General Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Ramesh Mittal, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the officials of the opposite party No.3 induced the complainant to purchase their Insurance Policy and he opted to purchase personal pension plan. The officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on Proposal Form and some other blank papers and he purchased the policy No.000000325353 and deposited Rs.10,000/- as first premium with the opposite party No.3 on 25.02.2004. The complainant has alleged that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the total term of the policy is ten years and he was required to pay 10 annual premiums of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. total Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties. The officials of the opposite parties had also assured the complainant to withdraw the amount deposited, at any time in case of need. The complainant deposited first two premiums of Rs.10,000/- each but later on, the complainant was not in a position to continue with the said policy and to deposit the amount of premium and as such he approached the opposite party No.3 with a request to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by him but the opposite party No.3 assured him to refund the amount after completion of formalities for the same. The complainant has further alleged that he is an old/aged person, has been regularly visiting the office of the opposite party No.3 from time to time with a request to cancel his policy and to refund the amount but the opposite parties have been putting the matter off one or the other pretext and did not refund any amount to the complainant. Ultimately, a week ago, the officials of the opposite party No.3 flatly refused to repay any amount to the complainant and proclaimed that the complainant is required to complete the term of the policy and is required to deposit the 10 premiums of Rs.10,000/- each. The complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 11.06.2011 to the opposite parties and also got issued a reminder to the notice dated 08.08.2011. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest, bouns, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the cause of action against the opposite parties relates to year 2004 whereas the complaint has been filed in 2011. The complainant purchased the above said policy of the opposite parties voluntarily of his own choice after fully understanding the contents of the proposal form and signed the declaration in the proposal form to this effect. The opposite parties have denied that any officials of the opposite parties induced the complainant to purchase any policy and the complainant will have a right to withdraw the amount at any time. The complainant has himself produced on file the insurance policy which means he was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and never opted for concellation of the policy during free look in the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The officials of the opposite parties have never obtained his signatures on any blank Proposal Form or Papers. It has denied that the complainant approached the opposite parties for refund. The policy in lying lapsed for non payment of premium. The opposite parties have further denied that the terms and conditions were never read over or explained to the complainant.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant has submitted that he had purchased one Insurance Policy for Rs.One Lac and he had deposited the first premium of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party No.3 on 25.02.2004 and the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.000000325353 to the complainant. The policy term in the said policy was of ten years and the complainant was required to pay 10 annual premiums of Rs.10,000/- each and in total, he was to pay Rs.One Lac to the opposite parties. The complainant has submitted that the opposite parties had obtained his signatures on blank form and papers and the opposite parties assured him to withdraw the amount deposited by him at any time in case of need. The complainant deposited the first two premiums of Rs.10,000/- each with the opposite parties but later on, he was not in a position to continue with the policy as such he approached the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount which had already been deposited by him but the opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that the said amount be refunded to him after completing the formalities. The complainant has further submitted that he has been regularly visiting the office of the opposite party No.3 and requesting them to cancel the policy but the opposite parties had been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext and has been assuring him that he need not to worry about his payment which is fully secured rather he shall get other benefits on the said amount including interest and bonus etc but till date, the opposite parties have not refund his money till date.
6. The opposite parties have taken legal objections that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. The cause of action against the opposite parties relates to 2004 whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2011. The opposite parties have referred the case law cited in 2002(2) CLT 105, 2009 (2) CLT 5141, 2003(2) CLT 491 and 2011(1) CLT 262(SC). The opposite parties have submitted that they have never assured the complainant that he will have right to withdraw the amount at any time. The complainant had purchased the policy in question voluntarily with his own choice after understanding the contents of the proposal form and signing the declaration in the proposal form to this effect. The complainant has himself produced on file the insurance policy which means he was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and never opted for concellation of the policy during free look period from the date of receipt of the policy. The officials of the opposite parties have never obtained the signatures of the complainant on any blank proposal form or papers. A policy so issued was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs.10,000/- each and sum assured of Rs.One Lac. The opposite parties have never assured the complainant that he could withdraw the amount any time. The complainant could not continue with the policy due to his own reasons and financial constraints. He has never approached the opposite parties for refund.
7. The First Premium Receipt Ex.C-10 shows that the complainant has purchased the Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium Policy. He had paid the first premium amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25.02.2004. Thereafter, he had paid the second premium of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has himself placed on file Ex.C-14 in which he has specifically mentioned that an amount of Rs.10,000/- payable annually from the date of commencement. Final premium due on 25.02.2013 and the premium term 10 years and the benefits as, “The basic benefits plus any attaching bonus and the additional benefits (where applicable) are detailed in the Schedule titled 'Schedule of Benefits' and are governed by the standard policy provisions and additional policy provisions respectively.”
8. In the Proposal Form Ex.R-2, it has been specifically mentioned the sum assured is of Rs.1,03,0783/-, Premium frequency: yearly and term is 10 years. The complainant has taken the plan for 10 years but he had paid only two premiums. On the failure of the premiums, his policy become elapsed. A perusal of Ex.R-3 i.e. Standard Policy Provisions shows that the complainant is entitled for the benefits on the payment of the premiums on due date. As per clause-5 Lapsed Policies, Paid up policies and Reinstatement:-
“(i) Lapsed and paid up policies
In the event that any premium remains unpaid 15 days after the due date and your policy has either, at our discretion, acquired a surrender value, or has acquired a guaranteed surrender value, your policy will be altered to a paid-up policy, subject to any terms and conditions which we may specify from time to time and any additional benefit(s) will be cancelled. These terms will involve a reduction in benefits and you will be informed accordingly.
Once your policy is made paid-up, it will cease to participate in profits. If, however, any premium remains unpaid 15 days after the due date and your policy does not have a surrender value, the basic benefit will lapse and no benefit will be payable to you.
(ii) Reinstatement of paid-up policies
If your policy has been paid-up, it may be reinstated, subject to our consent and such terms and conditions as we may specify from time to time.”
The complainant has failed to deposit the premium within 15 days as such his policy lapsed as per above mentioned clause and does not have surrender value, basic benefits also lapsed and no benefits will be payable.
9. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that this complaint is hopelessly time barred as the complainant has failed to deposit the premium after the year 2006 even during the grace period as such the policy was lapsed. The cause of action has arisen in 2006 but the complainant has approached this Forum on 12.10.2011 i.e. after a lapse of five years as the time limit for filing the complaint under the 'Act' is two years only from the cause of action arises. As per Section 24A of the 'Act':-
“Limitation Period:- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10, a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs Bijoy Kumar Roy and others, 2002(2) CLT 105, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24-A – Limitation – Claim filed beyond the period of limitation i.e. more than four years after defecs were pointed out – No dispute that the claim petition was barred by limitation – Question of stage of the proceeding has no relevance so far question of limitation is concerned – Contention of the appellant that the claim of the respondent No.1 was not entertainable by the District Consumer Forum being barred by limitation accepted – Judgment and orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission set aside.”
Further, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculural Industries, 2009 (2) CLT 541, wherein it has been held:-
“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action – As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing – If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality – The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997 – Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown – The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise – Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such – The appeal allowed – The orders of Foras below liable to be set aside and complaint dismissed as time barred.”
10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint is barred by limitation, thus dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
31-01-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
