BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.264/14.
Date of instt.: 23.12.2014.
Date of Decision: 29.03.2016.
Rakesh S/o Prem Singh R/o H.No.1767, Ward No.3, Bhayankar Pati-3, Village Keorak, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited through its Branch Manager, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal-136027.
2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., Regn.No.:107, 4th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai-400098.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured himself with the Ops vide life insurance policy bearing No.00857950 dt. 27.01.2008 and he paid the premium of Rs.25,000/- yearly against the said policy. It is alleged that the complainant approached the Ops for providing statement of account and to claim premium and benefits of policy but the Ops refused to give the statement of account and other relevant documents regarding continuance of policy. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is barred by the period of limitation as enshrined under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that the subject-policy has been issued in the year 2008. However, the instant complaint has been filed in December, 2014, whereby the complainant has alleged that the subject-policy is an outcome of the misselling which purportedly caused during the issuance of the policy; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as in the present complaint, the complainant has alleged misselling and misrepresentation and such serious allegations require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in a summary trail; that the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the terms of the policy contract, if the policy is not suitable, the policy-holder may get his/her policy reviewed by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (free look period) from the day the policy-holder received the policy. In the present case, the complainant after the receipt of the subject-policy and policy documents did not approach the answering Ops and got his subject-policy reviewed/cancelled within free look period implying that the complainant duly accepted the subject-policy and its documents with its terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed evidence on 02.02.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 and closed evidence on 02.02.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that there is no dispute that the complainant has got insured himself with the Ops vide life insurance policy bearing No. 00857950 dt. 27.01.2008 and the premium of policy was Rs.25,000/- annually. It is also not disputed that the complainant has deposited three premium instalments of Rs.25,000/- each annually. Thereafter, the complainant has not deposited any instalment of the premium. Ld. Counsel for the complainant alleges that the complainant was required only to pay the instalments for three years and the same have been paid by the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops contended that the policy in question was for a term of 10 years and the complainant had to pay 10 annual instalments of the premium but he has paid only three annual instalments. The Ops admitted that the date of issuance of policy was 27.01.2008. The Ops further admitted that the complainant paid three annual instalments of Rs.25,000/- of the premium (i.e. total amounting to Rs.75,000/-) and the next instalment was due on 27.01.2011 but the complainant had not paid the same. Ld. Counsel for the Ops has stated that after the receipt of premium for three full years, if the premium due have not been paid within the grace period, the insurance cover will continue for a period of two years from the date of the first unpaid premium. The complainant did not got revive the policy within a period of two years, so, the policy got automatically foreclosed and the foreclosure amount for the said policy was Rs.85,219.32 paise and the answering Ops have sent a cheque bearing No.461193 dt. 29.01.2013 for the said amount of Rs.85,219.32 paise to the address of complainant. The Ops admitted in their reply that the said cheque was not encahsed by the complainant. It is further admitted by the Ops that the said foreclosure amount of Rs.85,219.32 paise was paid to the complainant via NEFT and cleared in the complainant’s account No.50100028524084 on 05.01.2015. This fact of payment of Rs.85,219.32 paise has been admitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments but ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the payment was due as per Ops on 28.01.2013 and the same was paid on 05.01.2015 without any interest and the Ops are liable to pay the interest on the said amount for the said period.
6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops had admitted that they have sent a cheque dt. 29.01.2013 to the complainant regarding the insurance policy in question but the same was not encashed by the complainant and thereafter, the Ops had paid the said amount on 05.01.2015 in the account of complainant. The Ops have not paid any interest on the said amount and the said amount remained with the Ops till 05.01.2015 when the same was paid in the account of the complainant. Hence, the Ops are liable to pay the interest on the said amount to the complainant. So, the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the above-said amount for the period 28.01.2013 to 05.01.2015. No order as to costs. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.29.03.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
