Order No. 7

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Misc. Application dated 29/08/2023 filed by the opposite parties / petitioners on the point of maintainability of case being no.CC/33/2021 is taken up for hearing.

Complainant has not filed any written objection against the Misc. Application.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners submits that CC/33/2021 is barred by limitation. As such, the same is not maintainable in law and liable to be rejected.

In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised objection and submits that the case is well maintainable in law and not barred by limitation.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant further states that the Misc. Application is vague and liable to be rejected. The complaint application is not barred by limitation.

On scrutiny of CC/33/2021 it appears that the complainant has filed the instant case on 02/02/2021 and stated that the complainant on 19/03/2016 availed an insurance policy being policy no. 09523432 dated 19/03/2016 for a sum of Rs.7,31,271/- (Rupees seven lakh thirty one thousand two hundred and seventy one) only for a period of 15 years and paid initial premium of Rs.99,460/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand four hundred and sixty) only. Thereafter, due to financial crisis, the complainant failed to pay successive premium for the aforementioned insurance policy. The complainant made several requests to the opposite parties for refund of the initial premium amount but on one pretext or other the opposite parties turned down the requests of the complainant via emails. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as such he has been compelled to file this case.

The complainant annexed photo copies of documents from which it appears that the opposite parties on 18/12/2019 had sent an email to the complainant and informed that the requests to return the initial premium to the complainant has been turned down in respect of the policy no.09523432. In the said email opposite parties stated  “as per terms and conditions you are not entitled to any refund as the policy did not acquire a surrender value. Please note that the policy attains a surrender value only post 3 years of premium payment in full and also completion of 3 years of lock-in period. You may refer the policy document for details on the same.”

Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the opposite parties refuted the claim of the complainant to return the initial premium amount paid by him in respect of aforementioned policy vide email dated 18/12/2019.

Section-69(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 read as follows:

69.      Limitation Period – (1) The District Commission, 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.

It is apparent on the face of the record that the complainant has filed CC/33/2021 within 2 years from the date of refusal of his claim by the opposite parties.

Therefore, in our considered view CC/33/2021 is not barred by limitation.

We find that in Misc. Application, the opposite parties / petitioners have deliberately not disclosed the date on which they first refused the claim of the complainant.

By filing a vague application the opposite parties / petitioners purposely and deliberately tried to delay the disposal of CC/33/2021.

The Misc. Application dated 29/08/2023 lacks merit and liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

                                                            O R D E R E D

that the Misc. Application dated 29/08/2023 filed by the opposite parties / petitioners is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only.