Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/810/2010

Subhash Chand S/o Hukam Chand Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Lehana

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 810 of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 31.8.2010.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 21.9.2015.

Subhash Chand son of Sh. Hukam Chand Aggarwal, resident of 1345, Gomti Street, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, near Court Complex, H.U.D.A, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager.        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Opposite party.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Pawan Kumar Lehna, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for OP.               

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Subhash Chand has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent                ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to settle the claim of the complainant alongwith up to date interest @18% per annum and further prayed for Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/-.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased policy bearing No. 170240874 from the OP and paid three years full premium/installments regularly  towards this policy. Due to some financial constraints, the complainant was not able to continue the premium of the said policy. The complainant requested the OP to withdraw the aforesaid policy with all the consequential benefits and further requested to issue him the statement of account of his aforesaid policy so that he may be able to know the exact amount of his policy because the receipts of the installments issued to him were misplaced. The OP issued him the statement of account showing that the installments for the full three years have been paid by the complainant. The OP also assured the complainant that after fulfilling the required formalities, the premium amount alongwith accrued benefits thereon will be given back to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of OP for the withdrawal of the policy amount but they put off the matter with one pretext or the other. In the month of March2010, the complainant visited the office of OP and requested it to do the needful, but the OP flatly refused to do the needful on the pretext that his installments for the consequent period of three years were not paid by him and asked him that the statement of account which was issued to him was issued by mistake and then he demanded his statement of account but the OP refused to return the same. Hence this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, the present complaint is beyond limitation as per C.P.Act and on merit it has been mentioned that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP because the true facts are that after paying half yearly single premium of Rs. 1833.20P, the policy was allowed to be lapsed by non payment of premium and the said policy was got revived under special revival scheme with the new date of commencement i.e. 28.1.1992, change in terms as 14-15 from 14-17 and accordingly new premium was payable @ of Rs. 2100/- half yearly. The life assured paid only two premium due on 7/1992 and 1/1993 respectively on 3.6.1993 and as such nothing paid up value has been acquired in the policy and nothing is payable. It has been stated that a policy No. 170240874 was issued to the complainant with date of commencement 1.2.1990 under plan 14-17 in which half yearly single premium was deposited by the life assured on 31.3.1990. It has further been stated that suitable reply of the Legal Notice issued by Sh. Pawan Kumar Lehna Advocate had been given on 4.12.2009. Lastly stated that the complainant concocted a story just to get the benefits under the policy, which is entirely against the facts of the present case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and as such the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order dated 27.11.2014. However, only one document i.e. Reply of legal notice as Annexure C-1 has been filed by the complainant with the complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Balihar Singh Manager, LIC of India Divisional Office, Karnal as Annexure RX and document such as Photo copy of policy ledger sheet as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                      It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased policy bearing No. 170240874 from the OP for a sum insured of Rs. 55000/- which was commenced from 28.1.1992. It is also admitted fact that the policy in question was got revived under Special Revival Scheme with the date of commencement i.e. 28.1.1992 with change in term as 14-15 from 14-17 and accordingly new premium of Rs. 2100/- was payable half yearly. The life assured paid only two premium due on 7/1992 and 1/1993 respectively on 3.6.1993. It is also admitted that previously policy in question i.e. policy bearing No. 170240874 was issued to the complainant and date of commencement on 1.2.1990 under plan 14-17 in which half yearly single premium was deposited by the life assured on 31.3.1990. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as the complainant has deposited (3) three installments, hence he is entitled to get all the benefits under the policy in question.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP hotly argued that complainant i.e. life assured paid only two premium half yearly of Rs. 2100/- after revived the policy under special revival scheme and changing the term from 14-17 to 14-15. As such nothing paid up value has been acquired in the policy and nothing is payable. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the last premium has been paid by the complainant on 3.6.1993 and the present complaint has been filed on 31.8.2010 i.e. after a gap of near about 17 years and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone with heavy costs and referred the case law titled as State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) II (2009) CPJ page 29 (SC), Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, III(2009) CPJ Page 75 (S.C.) and also referred the case law titled as V.N. Shrikhande (Dr. ) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011(1) CLT Page 262 wherein it has been held that Admission of complaint- Limitation- Held that admission of the complaint filed under the CP Act should be the rule and dismissal thereof should be an exception- In the case of a complaint barred by time, the Consumer Forum is bound to dismiss the same unless the consumer makes out a case for condonation of delay under section 24A(2) of the Act.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, it is not disputed that complainant had paid only two half yearly premium of Rs. 2100/- each for the period of 7/1992 and 1/1993 respectively on 3.6.1993 after revival of the policy under Special Revival Scheme. In other word, the complainant did not continue his policy for a period of minimum (3) three years and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the policy can be surrendered for cash after the premium have been paid at least (3) three years. The premium surrender value allowable under the policy is equal to 30% of the total amount of the within mentioned premiums paid excluding the premium for the first year and all extra premiums, and/ or additional premiums for Accident benefit that may have been paid the cash value of any existing vested Bonus addition will also be allowed. So, after going through the above noted facts, it is clear that complainant failed to continue the policy in question for minimum three years. It is also not disputed that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 31.8.2010 after a gap of near about 17 years, which is hopelessly time barred as  per provisions of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection is reproduced as under:-

                        24-A. Limitation period.

                         (1) The District Forum, 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.

                        (2)        Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) , if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

                        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

10.                   After going through the above noted Section 24-A and facts of the present case it is clear that  present complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and no any sufficient cause for not filing the present complaint within the stipulated period has been shown by the complainant.  Besides this, the complainant has miserably failed to explain the reasons for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period though there is admittedly a delay of 17 years in preferring the complaint from the date of arising of cause of action. Moreover, the complainant has failed to file application for condonation of delay to explain any reason which barred the complainant from preferring the complaint in question before the Forum. Further complainant has failed to file any his policy in question and receipt of premium paid by him as alleged in his complaint. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we have no option except to accept the version of the OP which is duly supported by affidavit of Manager Legal.

11.                   In view of the discussions made above, we are of the confirmed view that the present complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and otherwise also the complaint of the complainant has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 21.9.2015.

                                   

                                                                                                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                      (S.C.SHARMA )                                                                                            

                                                                                                         MEMBER.