Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/432/2019

Virender kumar Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Life ins - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar

07 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.432 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 24.09.2019

                                                     Date of decision: 07.04.2021

 

Virender Kumar Kalra House No.251/10, Chakravarti Mohalla, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Max Life Insurance branch office SCO-7 & 8, Sector 17, Kurukshetra, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

2. Max Life Insurance Branch, Operation Centre, 2^nd Floor, 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon – 122015, Haryana through its  operational head.

                                                                ….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Shishan Dutt, Advocate for complainant.   

                Sh.Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Virender Kumar Kalra  against  Max Life Insurance Co. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant has a bank account in the Axis Bank and the agent of the OPs induced the complainant to  take policy of their company and further allured him that the policy of their company is better than all other companies and the complainant  under the allurement of the agent took a policy bearing No.130864820 in the month of December 2016 and paid the premium amount of Rs.72626.04 P. The agent of the company promised to the complainant that that the complainant would get the policy bonds within a week. The OPs again deducted Rs.71576.05 under the said policy in the month of December 2017. The complainant contacted the officials of the OPs and put queries about the policy bond but the complainant  was surprised when the officials of the OP told that policy bond is not available to the complainant and as such a big  fraud has been committed by the OPs with the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount deposited by him in the shape of two years premiums but the OPs refused to oblige the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,44,203/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant took the policy with his consent, policy documents dispatched to the complainant and the same has been delivered, complainant paid the premiums through ECS and on 28.2.2019 complainant applied for correction of his name and after that they did not pay the renewal premium in grace period, hence policy lapsed with waiver of charges and after that he raised request to revive the policy with waiver of charges. The OPs sent about the procedure to be followed and in last they did not follow the procedure and filed the case.  It is submitted that OPs are liable to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant only as per the terms and conditions of the contract, duly approved by the IRDA.  It is submitted that the complainant had satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy or if the wrong policy was  issued to him, he would have returned the policy within fifteen days for cancellation. However, the complainant has not opted for the same and continuously paid premium. Under the circumstances, the policy cannot be cancelled and the policy amount cannot be returned. It is wrong that any promise was made with the complainant to issue policy bond within a period of one week. The complainant cannot  surrender the policy as no value could be generated as minimum three years annual premium have not been paid.   While denying all other allegations specifically, preliminary  objections regarding maintainability, cause of action have been raised and it was prayed that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant  under the allurement of the agent took a policy bearing No.130864820 in the month of December 2016 and paid the premium amount of Rs.72626.04 P. The agent of the company promised to the complainant that that the complainant would get the policy bonds within a week.  It is also argued that the  OP again deducted Rs.71576.05 under the said policy in the month of December 2017. The complainant contacted the officials of the OP and put queries about the policy bond but the complainant  was surprised when the officials of the OP told that policy bond is not available to the complainant and as such a big  fraud has been committed by the OP with the complainant. The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount deposited by him in the shape of two years premiums but the OP refused to oblige the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that the complainant took the policy with his consent, policy documents dispatched to the complainant and the same has been delivered, complainant paid the premiums through ECS and on 28.2.2019 complainant applied for correction of his name and after that they did not pay the renewal premium in grace period, hence policy lapsed with waiver of charges and after that he raised request to revive the policy with waiver of charges. The OPs sent about the procedure to be followed and in last they did not follow the procedure and filed the case.  It is submitted that OPs are liable to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant only as per the terms and conditions of the contract, duly approved by the IRDA.  It is submitted that the complainant had satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy or if the wrong policy was  issued to him, he would have returned the policy within fifteen days for cancellation. However, the complainant has not opted for the same and continuously paid premium. Under the circumstances, the policy cannot be cancelled and the policy amount cannot be returned. It is wrong that any promise was made with the complainant to issue policy bond within a period of one week. The complainant cannot  surrender the policy as no value could be generated as minimum three years annual premium have not been paid. 

9.                     In this case it is not in dispute that the policy in question and paid the premiums for two years vide statement of account Ex.C-1. By way of two yearly installments, the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.1,44,203/- to the OP. The complainant was sent policy alongwith terms and conditions vide letter Ex.C-2 by the OPs. The stand taken by the OPs that the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount only after payment of three yearly installments, seems to be just and proper. The stand of the complainant that policy bond was not delivered to him is unjust and not proper because  policy bond is proved to have been delivered to the complainant as per track consignment Ex.R-3. Therefore, contention of the complainant that policy bond was not received by him is devoid of any force and the same is hereby rejected. In the document Ex.R-2 there is clear mention about the free look period and if the complainant was not satisfied with the policy terms or condition he was required to get the policy cancelled within a period of fifteen days but it has not been done by the complainant. 

                Further as per policy servicing conditions  “1. Surrender” this policy shall acquire a surrender value provided all the due premiums for the first three (three) policy  years have been received and applied by us on or after the due dates. As the complainant has not paid the three yearly installments to the OPs, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any surrender value and as such  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

10.            In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission

Dt.: 7.04.2021.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                       President.

 

 

  (Issam Singh Sagwal),                (Neelam)       

       Member                                Member