Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/418/2015

Maj Balvir Singh Sandhu (retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	418 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	6/7/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	6/1/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Maj Balvir Singh Sandhu (Retd.) R/o H. No. 43, Silveroad Heights, VIP, road Zirakpur, Punjab.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Regn. No. 107, CIN: U66030MH 2000PLC 128503 4^th floor Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159A, CST Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai 400098

 

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:    

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Sandeep Kaur, authorized agent of the complainant.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that  the complainant is a policy holder of the Opposite Party.  According to him he deposited a major revival request to the Opposite Party at its Chandigarh Branch but the same was not revived. It is alleged that when a complaint was made, the Opposite Party accepted the policy revival request but asked the complainant to deposit outstanding dues. As per the complainant nothing is due against him as he had already paid Rs.1 lac in 2010 and the remaining Rs.2 lac was paid in March 2013.  The Opposite Party have been changing their demands in lieu of policy revival as has been mentioned in para 3 at page 2 of the complaint.  The complainant rejected the demand of the Opposite Party as a result whereof OP closed the case of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party the present complaint has been filed.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Party seeking its version of the case.

3.          Opposite Party in its reply stated that  after the receipt of duly filled proposal form alongwith other requisite documents and the amount of first premium deposit, they issued the subject policy and the complainant himself at clause 3 of the proposal form chose the policy term with annual frequency. It was stated that a free look period option was duly provided in the policy. The Opposite Party further stated that if the complainant was not satisfied with the policy he could have availed the  option of free look period by  asking cancellation of the policy in question  within the stipulated period but the complainant did not avail the same meaning thereby the terms and conditions of the policy were acceptable to him.  The complainant only paid subscription premium under the said policy. Thereafter the next renewal premium  was due on 31.3.2011. Even renewal reminder dated 2.3.2011 was sent by the company.  The complainant did not pay renewal premium, consequently the said policy lapsed w.e.f. 31.3.2011, which was intimated to the complainant vide Annexure R-4.  Thereafter a pre-foreclosure  letter dated 29.1.2013 was also sent to the complainant informing him the revival period under the said policy would end on 30.3.2013.  Thereafter,   the Opposite Party received major revival form dated 22.3.2013 (Annexure R-6) from the complainant but since the major revival formalities as communicated to him were not completed by the complainant, his request for revival could not be processed and the said policy was foreclosed and foreclosure refund to the tune of Rs.2,06,814.34 was sent to him vide Cheque Annexure R-7, which was not encashed by him. Therefore, the amount was transferred to complainant’s account via NEFT.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party acted as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency on its part. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the authorized agent of the complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.          We have perused the Annexure R-1, which is a  proposal form duly signed by the complainant. The declaration in the proposal form is reproduced herebelow:-

“I/we confirm that I/we am/are submitting this proposal form after having read and understood the product features, benefits & risk factors, structure of charges, terms and conditions of the proposed plan as set forth in the related brochures(s) and I/we submit the duly acknowledged sales illustration confirming my/our understanding of the plan for which this proposal form is being submitted.”

          The policy documents was issued on 31.3.2010.

8.          It is evident from the record that the complainant never  approached the Opposite Party within free-look period of 15 days, with any request for cancellation, thereby signifying that the policy documents/terms and conditions of the policy were duly acceptable to the complainant.

9.          It is also observed that renewal reminder was sent by the Opposite Party on 2.3.2011. The said policy lapsed w.e.f. 31.3.2011 in terms of the policy conditions. Even the complainant  was informed by the Opposite Party on 29.1.2013 about the revival period ending on 30.3.2013. It is also observed that the complainant had sent a major revival form on 22.3.2013; but due to non-completion of revival formalities, the revival could not be processed by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party sent foreclosure amount of Rs.2,06,814.34. We have also perused Annexure R-11, which is a settlement arrived between the complainant and the Opposite Party before Insurance Ombudsman on 28.11.2014, wherein the complainant had agreed to deposit the due premium of Rs.4.00 lac for revival of his policy but it is observed that the complainant failed to comply with the settlement arrived before the Insurance Ombudsman.

10.          Hence we are of the concerted view that enough opportunities were given by the Opposite Party to the complainant for revival of his policy but now in the complaint he has sought for refund of premium paid. We are also of the view that the premium was given by the insured, to cover the risk for a given period and the insurer covered the risk for the period for which the premium was paid. If after that the policy has lapsed, under no provision of   terms of the policy or law, this Forum can direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period for which premium had been paid.

11.          Only the foreclosure amount as per terms and conditions of policy is payable by the OP., which has already been paid in this case. Hence therefore, we find no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint has no merit.

12.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

13.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Pronounced

6.1.2016                                                                                    sd/-

                                                                   (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER