IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 30th day of August, 2010
Filed on 21.01.2009
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 21/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Muraleedharan K.T. The Manager
Kampisseril House Life Insurance Corporation of
Pallarimangalam, Mavelikara India , Mavelikara Branch
(By Adv.R. Ullas) (By Adv. S. Devalal)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Complainant’s case is as follows; - Complainant was working abroad. He, on 1st April 1994 availed a Life Insurance policy from the opposite party. The name of the policy is Jeevan Surabhi which also provides accident benefits. The sum assured in the policy was Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) which would get matured on 1st January 2004. The nature of payment was yearly installment, and as such the complainant paid the 1st installment of Rs.66,072/- (Rupees sixty six thousand seventy two only). With the result, the opposite party issued policy certificate to the complainant. The complainant altogether remitted two premiums taking the total to Rs.1,50,944/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand nine hundred forty four only). Meanwhile, the complainant lost the job abroad and plunged into financial difficulty and failed to remit the yearly premium since 1996. The complainant approached the opposite party for closing the policy and to obtain the remitted amount. The opposite party assured the complainant that the amount could be returned after the expiry of the policy period. The complainant again got employment abroad and he could only approached the opposite party on 8th September 2008 either to continue the policy or to get the paid premium. But the opposite party turned down both on the ground that the policy had already been cancelled. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking to realize the paid premium and compensation.
2. Notice was sent. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for. The opposite party admitted that the complainant is a policy holder and he remitted two yearly premiums. The forceful contention of the opposite party is that as per condition No.7 of the policy, the complainant is entitled to the surrender value only if the insured remitted premiums at least for three years. Here the complainant had only paid two premiums for two years and no amount is payable to the complainant. The opposite party never offered to return the paid premiums to the complainant. As per condition two and three no policy could be revived after the expiry of 5 years from the date of the policy being defaulted. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party contended.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl and the documents Exts. Al and A2 were marked. Ext. Al is the revival quotation and Ext. A2 is the policy certificate. On the side of the opposite party its Marketing Manager was examined as RW1 and Ext. BI was marked. Ext. B1 is the copy of the letter the opposite party issued to the complainant.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties the questions arise for
consideration are:-
( 1) Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of the paid premiums from the Opposite party?
(2) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
5. Both the parties filed argument notes in detail. We heard the counsels. We meticulously went through the materials let in by the parties. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by time. The opposite party did not dispute the policy or the remittance of two annual premiums by the complainant. What is in dispute is that if the complainant is entitled to the refund of the two paid premiums. The opposite party vehemently argued that the condition No. 7 of the policy debase the complainant from getting the said premiums from the opposite party. As per condition No.7 the insured is enable to demand back the premium only if he/she acquires surrender value of the policy. To put it mildly, the insured gets hold of the right to the remitted premiums only if the premiums have been paid at least for a period of three years. The complainant has only paid premiums only for two years. The opposite party further
contends that no policy could be revived on expiry of 5 years from the date of the 1st default of the premium and before the date of its maturity, if the premium of a policy is not paid on due date nor did within the grace period the policy lapses. The complainant was offered an opportunity to revive the policy in 1998. The complainant failed to make use of the said opportunity, the opposite party contends. We carefully went through the arguments put forth by the opposite arty. The immediate question to be ascertained is that whether the policy conditions No.2, 3 & 7 disentitle the complainant either from reviving or recompensing the policy or the premiums. Going by the provisions of conditions 2 &3 stated on the reverse side of Ext.Al it can be very well seen that a discontinued policy can be revived only within five years from the date of the policy gets lapsed. Admittedly in the instant case, the complainant approached the opposite party for the revival of the policy on 8th September 2008. In this context, the contention of the opposite party as to this point merits acceptance.
6. Regarding refund of the remitted premiums, the provisions of condition No.7 categorically provides that the insured is entitled to the surrender value only if premiums have been paid at least for three years. To this point also, it is not denied or disputed by the complainant that only two premiums have been paid towards the policy. We are not hesitant to settle this question in favor of the opposite party. More over the complaint is barred by limitation. Without any hesitation, we hold that the complaint filed in 2008 and that too without a prayer or filing an application for condonation of delay is obviously barred by limitation.
For the reasons stated herein above, the complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Muraleedharan K.T. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Revival quotation
Ext.A2 - Policy Certificate
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - K.V.Venugopal (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the letter to the complainant by the opposite party
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainants/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
