BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 07^th DAY OF JANUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

One Sri.C.Vijayendra, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) alleging that, he obtained a Endowment Assurance Policy bearing No.360331198, dated 28.03.1998 from OP Life Insurance Corporation of India, Channapatna Branch, B.M Road, Channapatna for a period of 15 years.  The maturity date of the said policy was 28.03.2013.  At the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant had paid proposal deposit amount of Rs.18,575/- for which two receipts dated 22.02.1998 & 23.03.1998 were issued by OP.  Subsequently, the complainant has paid two premiums under the receipts dated 28.03.1998 & 20.01.2000.  Due to his personal commitments and family problems, the complainant could not pay further premium, except for initial 2 years.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP and requested them to refund the amount paid by him but the OP did not refund the amount for the reason that he has not paid the remaining instalments.  During one of his visits, some of the staff members assured the complainant that, he can get amount paid by him only after the maturity date and not before that and believing the words, the complainant waited till 28.03.2013.

2. The complainant further alleges that, after the maturity of the policy, he visited the office of OP in 1^st week of April 2013 and requested them to refund the amount paid by him but OP refused to pay the same.  The conduct of OP in refusing to refund the premium amount, amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the OP is liable to pay interest on the said premium amount.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for refund of total amount paid by him amounting to Rs.56,878/- and interest @ 1% per month on the said amount from 20.01.2000 to 20.06.2013 amounting to Rs.91,448/-.  Thus, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to pay him a sum of Rs.1,48,326/- together with interest @ 18% p.a and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The OP put in their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending as under:

The complaint has been preferred after more than 13 years from the first date of cause of action.  Therefore, on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  No officer/official in the OP have assured the complainant about the refund of the premium amount after the date of maturity.  This allegation made by the complainant is false.  The allegation of the complainant that, he has paid 3 premiums is false and he has paid only 2 premiums.  That the complainant had subscribed a Life Insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and the date of commencement of the policy is 28.03.1998 and the term of the policy is 15 years.  The premium amount is Rs.18,568/- p.a.  The complainant has paid the initial deposit at the proposal stage in a sum of Rs.18,575/- on 23.02.1998 and he has paid the first premium on 28.03.1998 for which he has been issued with a receipt.  The complainant has mistaken the first 2 payments as premium.  However, the initial amount of Rs.18,575/- paid on 23.02.1998 is not a premium but a proposal deposit.  As per the business practice, the proposal deposit is issued and then premium receipt is issued once the deposit is converted into policy.  The amount paid along with the proposal form will only be treated as deposit and no risk is getting covered during the period.  Only after accepting the proposal and risk the deposit is converted into premium and first premium receipt is issued.

5. That the complainant had made only one payment after the initial payment for March 1999 on 20.01.2000 along with interest for the delayed payment of Rs.1,167/-.  The complainant has not paid any further premium other than the two premiums mentioned above for the period 1999 and 2000.  As the policy has not acquired any paid up value nothing is payable.  The complainant is not entitled for any refund as provided in condition No.3 of the policy.  The last transaction in respect of the policy was in the year 2000 for March 1999 due and after that no payment was made and more than 5 years had elapsed from the date of last payment the policy cannot revived.  As per the procedure and guidelines followed by the OP, the policy files were destroyed.  Hence, only the specimen of the policy document is produced herein to explain the terms and conditions governing the said policy.  The present complaint has been filed without any basis.  Therefore, the OP prays for rejection of the complaint.

6. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence.  The complainant has filed copy of policy, the policy of temporary receipt dated 22.02.1998, copy of proposal deposit receipt, copy of first premium receipt and copy of renewal premium receipt.  The complainant reiterated the allegations made in the complaint in his affidavit evidence.  In support of their case, the OP got filed the affidavit evidence of their Administrative Officer Mr.P. Ravishankar S/o S.Padmanabhan.  The said P.Ravishankar reiterated the allegations made in the version in his affidavit evidence filed in lieu of oral evidence.  It is contended by the OP that since after payment made in the year 2000 for the premium of March 1999 no payment was made by the complainant for more than 5 years.  Therefore, there was no chance of revival of the policy and as per procedure and guidelines followed by them they have destroyed the policy files of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant has produced a specimen of the policy documents to appraise the Forum regarding the terms and conditions governing the Insurance Policy issued in favour of complainant.  The OP has also produced the history of premium transaction with regard to the policy issued in favour of the complainant.  Both the parties have submitted their written submissions and also relied upon certain judgments.

7. Now from the pleadings of both parties, sworn testimony and other material placed on record we have to find out whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP and whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed by him.

8. The complainant did not produce the original insurance policy issued by the OP.  The xerox copy of policy produced by him is illegible.  Therefore, we have relied upon the specimen policy produced by the OP.  On perusal of the specimen policy, we are convinced that it is the specimen copy of the policy issued in favour of the complainant.

9. It is not in dispute that, the insurance policy obtained the complainant is governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy.  The complainant also did not dispute that the insurance policy obtained by him is governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy.  The complainant in his affidavit evidence did not deny the averments made in the version filed by the OP.  He also did not deny the contention of the OP that he has paid only two premiums and not three as claimed by him in the complaint.  The complainant did not name the member of staff or official/officer who informed him during one of his visits to the OP office that he would get the refund of the entire premium after the maturity of the policy.  OP categorically denied that any official or officer of their office informed the complainant that he would get the entire premium after maturity of the policy.  The close perusal of the terms and conditions in the policy does not provide for refund of two premiums, as in the case on hand, after the maturity of the policy.  Therefore, we do not find any truth in the contention of the complainant that he was informed by official/officer of the OP that he would get refund after the maturity of the policy.

10. Admittedly, the complainant did not made any efforts to revive the said policy after he last paid his premium in the year 2000.   Condition-3 of the policy documents provides as under:

“If the policy has lapsed, it may be revived during the life time of the Life Assured, but within period of 5 years, and before the date of maturity, on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of payment compounding half yearly  The Corporation, reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of a discontinued policy.  The revival of a discontinued policy shall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and specifically communicated to the Life Assured”.

Condition-5 of the policy documents deals with forfeiture in certain events.  For better understanding of the forfeiture clause, the same is extracted below:

“Forfeiture in certain events: In case the premium shall not be duly paid or in case any conditions herein contained or endorsed hereon shall be contravened or in case it is found that any untrue or incorrect statements is contained in the proposal, personal statement, declaration and connected documents or any material information is withheld, then any in every such case but subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, wherever applicable, this policy shall be void and all claims to any benefit in virtue of hereof shall cease and determine and all moneys that have been paid in consequence hereof shall belong to the Corporation, excepting always in so far as relief’s provided in terms of the privileges herein contained or may be lawfully granted by the corporation”.

11. The above condition no.5 provides that, in case the premium is not duly paid by assured the policy shall be void and all the moneys that have been paid by the assured shall belong to the Corporation.  In the instant case, admittedly complainant has failed to pay the premium after payment of just 2 premiums.  As provided in condition no.3 the complainant not made efforts to revive the policy within a period of 5 years from the date of payment of last premium.  Therefore, the OP is justified in forfeiting the policy and the amount paid therein.  The refusal by OP in entertaining the request made by the complainant is fully justified and the same is inconsonance to the terms and conditions of the policy document.

12. The complainant did not point out any relevant clause in the policy document under which he is entitled for refund of the premium amount paid by him.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium amount as claimed in the complaint.  OP in their version contended that the complaint itself is barred by limitation, therefore the same shall be dismissed on this ground alone.  Admittedly, the last annual premium paid by the complainant is on 20.01.2000 for the payment for March 1999 together with interest and delayed payment.  Thereafter, the complainant has not paid any premium.  Therefore, the cause of action for the complainant arouses in the month of March 2000 and not on 28.03.2013 as claimed in the complaint.  The complainant ought to have approached this Forum within two years from the date of refusal of the OP in entertaining his request for refund of the premium amount in the year 2000-2001.  However, the complainant has approached the Forum in the year 2013. 

13. As already stated above, absolutely there is no material on record to believe that any official working in the OP assured the complainant that he would get refund of the premium after the maturity date of the policy document.  There is also no any clause in the policy document which enables the complainant to seek refund of premium in a case like this.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time.  On this count also the complaint is also liable to be dismissed.

14. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and the complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed on merit as well as being barred by limitation.

15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 07^th day of January 2016)

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 15.10.2013.

1. Sri. C.Vijayendra.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 19.11.2013.

1. Sri.P. Ravishankar.    

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*