DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 18 of 11-01-2010<br /> Decided on : 26-07-2010 <br /> <br /> Maya Goyal, aged about 55 years Wd/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal Goyal, Advocate, R/o # 5095, Gali Old Tehsil, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.ING Vysya Life Insurance Company, ING Vysya House, 5th Floor, No. 22, MG Road, Bangalore.<br /> 2.Branch Manager, ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd., 1st Floor, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Miss Anupan Goyal, Sales Manager, ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, The Mall, Bathinda (Deleted vide order dated 24-02-2010)<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for<br /> opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in good faith opposite parties got the signatures of complainant on document for issuing the single premium policy of amount of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing Life Insurance policy of opposite party No. 3 without disclosing the nature and contents of the policy schedule, its brochure and its terms and conditions by saying that she would not be required to deposit any amount as it was a single premium policy. The complainant received notice from the opposite parties for payment of renewal premium of the policy and further demand of Rs. 50,000/- as 2nd installment. The complainant requested the opposite parties that at the time of issuance of the insurance policy, it was stated to her that it was a single premium policy and no further installment was to be paid. It was conveyed to her that if she would not make the payment of the next installment then the first installment shall also be forfeited. The complainant sent registered A.D legal notice to the opposite parties to return the amount so invested with interest but no response was received. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 50,000/- with interest and also pay damages in addition to litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed joint reply and submitted that complainant had submitted a proposal for insurance to the opposite parties proposing for an Insurance Product. Based on the answers, statements and declarations made by her in the said proposal form, the opposite parties issued unit linked Insurance cover termed as Unit Linked High Life Plus bearing No. 00764941 to the complainant on 13-08-2007. The sum inured was Rs. 2,50,000/- and the premium payable was Rs. 50,000/- and payment terms was Annual falling due on 13th August of each year. As per Regulation 6(2) of (Protection of Policyholder's Interest) Regulation 2002, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, the policyholder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of the receipt of policy bond (Free Look Period). The said fact was clearly intimated to the complainant in the Welcome Letter dated 13-08-2007. It has been pleaded that the complainant failed to pay the first annual renewal premium which was due on 13-08-2008 and the policy went into lapsed stage. It has been pleaded that complaint is a willful and malafide design to get back Rs. 50,000/- paid by the complainant towards the first renewal premium for a policy which got lapsed due to non payment of renewal premium. The complainant has suppressed the material fact that the insurance advisor in present case is none other than the wife of her son namely Mrs. Renuka Rani.<br /> 3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. <br /> 4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.<br /> 5. The complainant purchased Unit Linked Insurance Cover from opposite party No. 3 and paid premium of Rs. 50,000/-. When the demand of second instalment of premium was raised by the opposite parties, the complainant objected that she was under the impression that this policy was of single premium. The complainant had alleged that the opposite parties have wrongly conveyed to her at the time of issuing the insurance that this policy is a single premium policy and obtained her signatures on blank application form as well as policy documents. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have given threat to her to forefeit the premium amount of Rs. 50,000/- which she has already paid.<br /> 6. The opposite parties have taken many preliminary objections. One of the preliminary objection is that the complainant has filed this complaint outside the period of limitation and for this, they have quoted Section 24-A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 according to which the complaint is mandatorily required to be filed within the period of two years from the date of cause of action. The policy in question was issued to the complainant on 23-07-2007, the 2nd installment of premium was due on 23-08-2008 and date of expiry of the policy is 23-07-2017. The opposite parties have not explained from which date they have calculated two years as expiry period. So this objection of the opposite parties is not tenable. <br /> 7. The complainant has alleged that opposite parties have got her signatures on blank proposal form and some other blank documents. In the present case, insurance advisor of the complainant is the wife of his son namely Mrs. Renuka Rani and as such, the complainant cannot raise insinuations on Mrs. Renuka Rani as to fraudulent conduct and mis-representation at the time of selling the policy.<br /> 8. The opposite parties duly acted as per the mandate given in the proposal form and issued the policy strictly as per the terms filled up and plan chosen in the proposal form. There are no variation in the proposal form and the policy issued to the complainant. The complainant purchased Unit Linked High Life Plus policy bearing No. 00764941 dated 13-08-2007 Ex. R-7. A perusal of Ex. R-7 reveals that the sum assured was Rs. 2,50,000/- and the premium payable was Rs. 50,000/- and payment terms was annual falling due on 13th August of each year. The premium payment term was 3 years and date of expiry of policy was 23-07-2017. The nominees in the policy was Rattan Lal, husband of the complainant. This piece of evidence which has been produced by the opposite parties on file shows that premium terms was for three years. When the Insurance appointee was the wife of the son of the complainant, it could not be believed that she was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy when she purchased the same.<br /> 9. The complainant was entitled for the maturity value if she had followed the terms and conditions of the policy but she has paid only one installment of premium and she discontinued paying premium within three years. Thus her case falls under clause 4.3 of the Insurance Policy in question which is reproduced below :- <br /> .......4.3 Discontinuation of Regular Premium within three years of the policy commencement date. - If payment of the regular premium is discontinued before completion of three years from the policy commencement date, the Insurance cover shall cease with immediate effect, if the regular premium is not received within 30 days of the due date for payment, and the policy in such case would continue without Insurance Cover, with deduction by the company of charges other than mortality charges and rider premium charges, if any from the policyholder's fund value. Where premiums have been discontinued within three years of policy commencement date as mentioned in this clause and death of the life assured occurs during such period, the company's liability under the policy shall be limited to payment of fund value, The policy holder may at any time within 5 years from the date of cessation of the insurance cover, apply to the Company for reinstatement of the insurance cover and the company may its discretion and subject to fulfillment of the conditions set forth in clause 5 below, allow reinstatement of the insurance cover. Unless the insurance cover is so reinstated, the company shall pay the policyholder's fund value, if any, on expiry of the period of 5 years provided for reinstatement of insurance cover.”<br /> 10. Hence as per aforesaid clause, if the complainant at any time within 5 years from the date of cessation of the insurance cover apply to the company for reinstatement of the insurance cover and the company may at its discretion and subject to fulfilment of the conditions set forth in clause 5, allow reinstatement of the insurance cover. Unless the insurance cover is so reinstated, the company shall pay the policyholder's fund value, if any, on expiry of the period of five years provided for reinstatement of insurance cover and that period of 5 years has not yet been completed. So, the complaint is premature. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the premium amount which she has already deposited. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-07-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />