DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 158/2018

QUORUM:

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By the present judgment, the commission is disposing off the complaint of the complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service on its part and praying for refund of the amount paid towards policy along with compensation and litigation cost.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a policy from OP on 30.03.2013 on pursuance of the agent of OP for a term insurance plan for a period of 10 years policy, stating that the policy is one-time investment policy that would cover complainant lifetime coverage and pension along with other benefits for a sum of Rs.600000/- as one time insurance premium.  The agent has also obtained his signature on the blank form, however, the complainant had not received the premium policy till 30.03.2014. The complainant submits that he has received a SMS alert message from OP for making a payment of insurance premium of Rs.600000/-. After receiving the SMS, the complainant approached to OP office and intimated that he has not been given the policy document and therefore the OP had issued a duplicate policy bearing number 1766 5875, dated 30.03.2013 to the complainant. Upon checking the complainant came to know that the policy is not as per terms of the plan discussed with the agent and the form that has been obtained from the complainant   the complainant were not inscribed and were forged and the plan allotted was different from the one discussed. The complainant had already made many complaints, telephonically, SMS and letter letter and only one reply dated 20.02.2015 has been received by the complainant, which is stated to be on the basis of false and fabricated averments. Complainant requested for the refund of the premium amount of Rs.600000/- paid by him to OP contending that it was told to him for one time investment, however, no action about the refund of the policy amount was taken. The legal notice dated 08.03.2018 was replied by the OP on 29.03.2018 on the false and fabricated grounds. A written complaint given at the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India on 01.07.2016 and a complaint dated 26.02.2015 were also made for refund of money but no action was taken. Complainant submits that not refunding the premium amount of the complaint is illegal, unwarranted and without any authority of law, which has caused him lot of mental torture, harassment, financial loss and agony on account of illegal act of the OP and for which he is entitled to be compensated reasonably along with the premium amount of Rs.600000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and cost of litigation.
2. On notice, OP filed his written statement but at the stage of filing evidence OP did not appear and has been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.11.2022.
3. In support of his case, the complainant has filed complaint dated 26.02.2015, copy of reply dated 28.02.2015 issued by OP, copy of complaint dated 13.03.2015 through emails, the service receipt, complaint dated 23.03.2016, copy of complaint at Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, legal notice and postal receipts.
4. The commission has gone through the documents and heard the parties. Since the OP was not allowed to file the evidence, the contentions of OP as in written statement, in the absence of supported by the evidence, has no meaning under the eyes of law and the same cannot be read for the purpose of its defence.
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records. 
6. Before deciding the matter on merit, issue w.r.t. the limitation in filing the complaint has to be decided. The documents on record reveals the policy was issued in 2013. This is the admitted position that the complainant has received an SMS to the WhatsApp for payment of premium for renewal of policy, that the policy was different from that of which he authorised the OP’s agent that same is also not bearing his signature and allegation of forgery made on the part of OP. The documents on record show that the cause of action has arisen in the year, 2014 itself i.e. when the SMS alert message was received by the complainant with respect to renewal of the policy on 18.04.2014. 
7. As per Consumer Protection Act 1986, section 24 A corresponding (see 69 of CPA, 2019), it is mandated that the district forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The section further states that a complaint may be entertained after two years of period, if the complainant would satisfy the Commission, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP on 14.05.2018 i.e. almost after four years when the cause of action has accrued, that too, without filing application for condonation of delay along with the complaint. The complainant has filed application for condonation of delay on 13.04.2023, after OP has filed its written statement, wherein OP has taken objection w.r.t. the limitation period in filing the present complaint stating that he has came to know for the first time about the foreclosure of the policy in question vide reply dated 29.03.2018 of his legal notice dated 08.03.2018 and thereafter he has filed the present complaint on 14.05.2018 which is very much within limitation and that the said policy was for a period of seven years and the maturity of the policy was completed after completing of 15 years and cause of action when complainant came to know about the foreclosure of the policy on April, 2018, when the reply dated 29.03.2018 was received by him. The reason given by the complainant in his application for condonation of delay is not in consonance with the contents of the complaint of the complainant.     
8. Considering the documents on record, admitted position as per the averments made in the complaint of the complainant, and facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission reached to a conclusion that the complainant has come to know about the mis-selling of the policy, in the year 2014 itself, and to be more specific on 18.04.2014 when the SMS alert was sent by OP.  The statutory period of two years for filing a complaint expires on 18.04.2016 and the present complaint is filed on 14.05.2018 which is beyond limitation and cannot be decided by this Commission. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed being beyond limitation.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 06.03.2024.