BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Surinder Kumar r/o Plot No.66, Dashmesh Enclave, Mundi Kharar, Khara

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.166-167, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Varun Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Rajesh    Goel, Adv. for OP

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                   By this common order we propose to dispose of the following two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts arise :-

1)           Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2010-Surinder Kumar Vs. ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

2)           Consumer Complaint No. 232 of 2010-Santosh Kumari Vs. ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

2]                The facts may be taken from the case in hand i.e. Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2010-Surinder Kumar Vs. ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

                   The facts of the case are as under:-

                   The complainant took a life insurance policy from the OP on 9.6.2006 for a total assured amount of Rs.79,450/-  with maturity date on 9.6.2022.  The premium was paid bi-annually.  The complainant has submitted that he paid all premiums regularly but missed one payment.  Subsequently, he approached the OPs to make the payment and deposited Rs.6310/- in cash on 21.8.2009.

                        Thereafter, the complainant was surprised to see that the amount paid by his wife was returned by the OPs but the amount paid by him was not returned so he obviously presumed that it had been accepted.  When the complainant contacted the OPs, he was informed that the amount paid by him had been forfeited by them and the policy had lapsed.  Being surprised, the complainant served a legal notice on the OPs as to why had this action been taken by them.  The OPs replied that his signatures did not match with the signatures on the policy, hence the policy could not be revived due to this mis-match.  The complainant has alleged that he was very surprised to this attitude of OPs.  They had first accepted the money paid by him in cash and now they had lapsed his policy because of mis-matching of signatures.  The complainant had thus filed these complaints alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the OPs.  The complainant has alleged that he is not interested in continuing the policy with the OP any further and has requested for refund of the amount paid along with compensation. 

3]                After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

                   The OP in its reply has admitted that the complainant was issued a policy.  However, they have submitted that the complainant failed to remit two semi-annual premiums due on 9.12.2008 and 9.6.2009 inspite of repeated reminders and calls by them to the complainant.  The policy therefore stood lapsed in view of Clause-5 of the conditions applicable to the basic policy.  Clause 5 is reproduced as under :-

                   “Clause 5 – Payment of Premiums and Grace Period.

After the Date of Policy Commencement, any premium due must be paid not later than 30 days from its due date.  Any unpaid premium is deductible from the benefits that may arise during the 30-day grace period.  If the premiums due are not paid within the grace period, the Policy lapses.  The date of lapse shall be the due date of the earliest unpaid premium.  The Company shall immediately thereon, cease to be liable to pay the Sums Assured under such lapsed Policy, except as stated under the non-forfeiture provisions of this Policy, until and unless the Policy has been fully reinstated.  A lapsed Policy shall cease to participate in the profits of the Company from the lapse date.”

                   The OP has further submitted that the complainant paid the outstanding premium of Rs.6310/- due towards revival of the policy but while processing the application, the signatures of the complainant did not match with those in the proposal form.  The complainant was then requested to provide specimen signatures on the signature verification form and the premium was kept in the suspense account. The complainant did not take any step to provide specimen signatures to the OP and instead made a request in Dec., 2009 for refund of the renewal premium paid at the time of revival.  Once again the signature of the life assured did not match. The Signature Verification Form received from the complainant on two different occasions i.e. 21.12.2009 and 7.1.2010 did not match with the signature available on the record of the OP.

                   The OP has submitted that the renewal premium of Mrs.Santosh Kumar (complainant in the connected complaint) lying in the suspense account was refunded to her on her written request.  However, the premium paid by the complainant was not forfeited.  The OP has further submitted that the complainant is free to approach them at any time within 5 years from the due date of the first unpaid premium as per Clause 6 of the Terms & Conditions along with declaration of heath to get the policy reinstated and revived.  In view of these submissions, the OP has submitted that the complaints are frivolous and needs to be dismissed. 

4]                We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as written arguments of OP.

5]                At the time of arguments, a suggestion was made to the complainant that the policies be revived by the OP.  However, the ld.Counsel for the complainant insisted that the complainant had now lost faith in OP, since so many signatures sent by him had not been found to be matching with his earlier signatures.  He did not want to continue with the policy and face similar problems at a later date.  The complainant thus prayed for refund of the amount paid.

6]                We are also of the opinion that since the OP is still not satisfied with the signatures placed on record by the complainant and this problem may reoccur again at the time of final payment, it would be in the interest of justice to close the contract right away and order refund of the money paid by the complainant.  Once the complainant has lost faith on the OP, there is no point in asking the OP to revive the policy for which the complainant and the OP may have differences at a later date. 

7]                In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the OP should refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposits till the date of realization.  Therefore, we allow both the complaint cases and order the OP as under:-

i)             Refund Rs.21,460/- to complainant-Surinder Kumar and Rs.12,122/- to complainant-Santosh Kumari, along with interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization.

ii)            To pay Rs.10,000/- in all to both the complainants towards compensation and cost of litigation.

                   The above amounts be paid by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the aforesaid amounts of Rs.21,460/- and Rs.12,122/- from the date of their deposits till the date of payment to the complainant besides paying Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.