Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/64/2016

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standered life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2016

Date of Institution                        :    22.07.2016 

Date of Decision                :    12.02.2018

Mrs.Manjit Kaur W/o Late Kuldip Singh Resident of H. No.224, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Phagwara (Kapurthala) now at C/o Sawinder Singh Gali No.2, Garhshankar Road, Opp. Insind Bank, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Near Bus Stand, Nawanshahr, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Mr.Joga Singh Agent of M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, posted at HDFC Bank, Branch Banga, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar.
3. Miss.Harpreet Kaur Agent of M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, posted at HDFC Bank, Branch Banga, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar.

…….Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

Sh.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

Sh.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Gulshan Rana, Advocate

For OP No.1                            :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP No.2&3             :         Ex parte

 

ORDER 

PER .A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

                   Complaint  -  Mrs.Manjit Kaur W/o Late Kuldip Singh Resident of H. No.224, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Phagwara (Kapurthala) now at C/o Sawinder Singh Gali No.2, Garhshankar Road, Opp. Insind Bank, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( hereinafter referred to as the Act)  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant had opted for two policies of OPs bearing policy No.14715359 & 14185529 in 2011 under HDFC Life Classic Pension Plan & HDFC Saving Assurance Plan, through OP No.2&3.  The OPs advised  complainant to avail the said policies and explained all the features, benefits and terms of the company orally with brief of the policy and they also assured that the income benefit will be payable monthly under pension plan but the main policies were not delivered to complainant by OP No.2&3. Complainant paid premium of said policy regularly either the HDFC Bank has recovered the same from her account No.13311000067166. Husband of complainant was suffering from kidney damage disease and lot of amount was spent on the treatment of her husband and lastly he  expired during treatment, so she could not  pay her premium due to financial problem and in this regard she made many requests for cancellation of said policy and to process refund of premium paid towards these policies. Complainant also approached  OP-1 and narrated all for which they have not taken any action,  to refund her premium amount and HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd is still harassing her.  Lastly, it is prayed that following directions be issued to OPs:-

1. OPs be directed to cancel the said policies and to release the amount of premium paid against said polices.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment to the complainant.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but none turned up for OP No.2&3, hence they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.10.2016.  OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections, inter  alia,  that at the very outset answering OP has denied all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint except to extent they are expressly admitted therein.  Complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as complainant has misguided and mislead this Forum.  No cause of action arisen to complainant to file present complaint.  Complainant has created false story. Disputed questions of facts are involved in the present complaint which can only be decided by Civil Court after leading cogent evidence, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the same.  As regards the facts of the complaint, it is stated that the complainant – Manjit Kaur “Life Assured” (hereinafter referred to as LA) had submitted to answering OP, two proposal/application dated 28.01.2011 for purchase of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on information provided by LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing No.14185529 and same was delivered to complainant on 08.02.2011 with commencement date of 11.11.2011.  Similarly, LA submitted another proposal/application dated 09.11.2011 for purchase of HDFC Saving Classic Pension Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by LA and another policy was issued bearing No.14715359 dated 11.11.2011 which was delivered to complainant on 03.12.2011.  Before acceptance of proposal by answering OP the contents of the proposals/applications, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the LA in the language best known to her. Accordingly after understanding all the terms and conditions of the proposal forms were signed by LA/complainant to that effect.    Further, complainant also signed the Mandate form for direct debit for debiting the premium amount from her bank account maintained in HDFC Bank wherein it was clearly mentioned that respective premiums to the tune of their insurance policy was to be deducted from her bank account.  It was also intimated to her that since she had not made the request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days free look period; therefore, the policy cannot be cancelled.  The cause of action to file the present complaint accrued to the complainant on 13.06.2012 or within three or four days thereafter when she received the said letters refusing cancel the policies.  She should filed the present complaint within the period of 2 years from the date of receipt of said letters, whereas the present complaint has been filed in July 2016 which is hopelessly time barred.  Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as the policy documents delivered to LA provided her a period of 15 days within which she could have returned the policies to the OP-1 by stating the reason thereof.  The act & conduct of the complainant in not returning/surrendering the policies within the given time signified her acceptance of the terms and conditions of policy documents.   It is submitted that the complainant choose to keep mum till almost 5 years from the date of deposit and suddenly woke up from slumber alleging that she has not received policy documents.  Moreover, if she had filed complaints in 2012 then why did she kept mum till 2016. It is further submitted that complainant has filed the present complaint when both the policies have already been lapsed due to non-payment of subsequent premiums and the complainant has already taken all the benefits of the policies for the period for which she had paid the premium, hence complainant is no more consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.   After denying the other averments made in the complaint OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                In order to prove complaint, complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and close the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OP-1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna Ex.OP1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/15 and closed the evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the OP has at the very outset, submitted that his preliminary objection, as regard to limitation be decided before adjudication on merits of the case.  Learned counsel for OP vehemently contented that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within a period of two years of cause of action having occurred to the complainant. He pleaded that the complainant failed to avail free look in period of 15 days even after receiving copy of the insurance policy in the year 2011.The ld. counsel further submitted that the complainant should have approached this Forum within two years. The ld. counsel also submitted that the documents placed on record alongwith the complaint cannot help the complainant in covering the limitation. Learned counsel argued that it is established from the letter dated…… sent to the complainant by OP that the present complaint is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions learned counsel citied certain case laws:- State Bank of India Vs M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 2009(2) R.C.R. (civil) 628, 2009(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 611: 2009 (2) PLR 496: 2009(5) SCC 121: 2009 AIR (SC) 2210;  Appeal (Civil) 6572 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9076 of 2004) titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs B.K. Sood decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India- 2006(1) Civ CC 646: 2006(1) SCC164: 2005(9) JT 503: 2005(9) Scale 124: First Appeal No.202 of 2012 titled as Avtar Singh Dhillon Vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited etc decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that the present case deserves to be decided on merits, as no policies were ever received by the complainant and the OP has failed to place on record any cogent material, in order to establish that the policy was delivered. He pleaded that no postal receipts or courier receipt has been placed on record to prove that the said policy was delivered at the address of the complainant.

7.  We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, written submissions as well as oral submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the OP .It is established from the letter dated 13.06.2012 Ex.C-1 and letter dated 13.06.2012 Ex.C-2,wherein OP had replied to the request for cancelation in the year 2012. From the aforesaid letters, it is established that the cause of action to file the present complaint arose to the complainant in the year 2012 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2016 i.e. after a period of 4 years. The present complaint is barred by limitation, as prescribed under Section 24A of the Act. Further the complainant has not even filed application for condonation of delay.

8. Recently the  Hon’ble National Commission, in Ankesh Goyal V/s Housing Board & Anr,I (2018)111(NC) observed that complaint is not maintainable if barred by limitation, while referring to Hon’ble Apex Court, in State Bank of India V/s M/s.B.S.Agricultural,II(2009)CPJ 29(SC) wherein, it was held that if complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer Forum decides the complaint On Merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality. In Haryana Urban development Authority V/s B.K.Sood,IV(2005)CPJ1(SC) it was observed in para no.11 “The Section debars any Fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by appellant that the claim of respondent was barred by time.

 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion and the recent decision of  Hon’ble National Commission, in Ankesh Goyal V/s Housing Board & Anr(Supra) and  various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP. We find that the present complaint is barred by limitation as there is a total delay of 4 years, therefore we don’t find it appropriate to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

9. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.02.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

  Dated 12.02.2018                                                       

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                                  President