Orissa

Cuttak

CC/16/2021

Jyoti Ranjan Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Life Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S N Sahoo

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.16/2021

Jyoti Ranjan Sahoo,

S/O:Surendranath Sahoo,

At:Plot No.G/163,Sector-6,C.D.A,

P.O:Markat Nagar,Dist:Cuttack-753014.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        M/s. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. represented

              Through it’s The Manager,

              2^nd Floor,Metro House,A-410,

              Vanivihar Square,Saheed Nagar,

              Janpath,P.O:Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007,

              Dist:Khurda,Odisha.

 

2.        M/s. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. represented

              Through it’s The Manager,

              Link Road,Madhupatna,

              PO:Arunodaya Market,Dist:Cuttack,

              Odisha.                                                                                                     ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.02.2021

Date of Order:   01.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.N.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr. R.C.Panigrahy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had taken a policy from M/s. Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. bearing policy no. 565654100 dt.24.6.19.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the monthly premium was being deducted from his account on the 24^th day of each month as there was no provision for depositing the premium by cash but the O.Ps had not deducted the monthly premiums as due from the S.B.I,Bidanasi Branch account of the complainant even though sufficient balance was there in his said account.  On 24.11.20 at about 8.15 A.M., the O.P had sent a message to the complainant specifying therein that his policy bearing no.565654100 has lapsed and if he intends to revive the same he is to pay the premium of Rs.2642.15p.  That day at 9.35 P.M, the complainant had mailed his message to the O.Ps that he does not want to continue the policy.  But the O.Ps again had sent message to the complainant on 22.11.20 at about 1.39 P.M that his grievances has been registered with reference no.5195739 and their Grievance Officer,Mr. Rajat Mahajan will update the complainant shortly.  The complainant had sent a reminder message to the O.Ps to close his above policy and refund his money with interest.  On 4.12.20 at about 4.06 P.M the O.Ps had sent a message to the complainant that an amount of Rs.5284.30p is due from him towards his policy bearing no. 565654100 which will be debited from his bank account on 4.12.20 and they had specified in the said message that the complainant should have sufficient balance in his account for the said deduction.  The said amount was deducted from the account of the complainant which has been reflected in the passbook of the complainant.  The complainant had sent a legal notice to the O.Ps and ultimately has filed this case seeking an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony due to deficiency in service of the O.Ps.

            The complainant has filed copies of his insurance policy and abstract of deduction of premiums from the month of June,2019 to December,2020 from his account as provided to him alongwith copies of some mails as exchanged.  He has also filed copy of his legal notice as sent by him to the O.Ps.

2.         On the other hand, both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable, the complainant has suppressed the material facts intentionally.  He was defaulted in paying the premiums of the policy as opted by him for which the policy had lapsed.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps intending to purchase the said insurance policy and had entered into the proposal and had executed the same.  The O.Ps in their written version have specified about the said policy of the complainant in a tabular manner and according to them, the complainant was required to deposit an annual premiums of Rs.28,711.20p as per the terms of the policy for a period of 12 years till May,2031.  The complainant had preferred and opted to pay the premium on monthly mode via ECS and accordingly he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,700.28p towards the monthly premiums.  Two of such ECS were returned unpaid for which the policy had lapsed.  The complainant had not paid the premiums for which the policy was not in existence and as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.  The O.Ps through their letter dt.8.11.20 had intimated the complainant regarding the dishonour of the ECS transaction dt.27.10.20 and had requested him to deposit the said premium through any other mode and they have specified through their letter to the complainant for depositing the said premiums as “Convenient Payment Options”.  The said letter of the O.Ps had also specified the consequences of non-payment of the premiums within the stipulated time.  The complainant was again informed by the O.Ps through their letter dt.30.11.20 regarding the dishonour of the ECS transaction dt.27.11.20 and was again requested to deposit the said amount through any other mode (Convenient Payment Options.  Even after receiving the said letter, the complainant remained silent for which the policy had lapsed and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

            The O.Ps have also filed copies of certain documents in order to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

            In order to prove their case, the O.Ps have filed evidence affidavit of one Salil Ojha working as Deputy Manager(Operations). While going through the evidence affidavit as filed by the said Salil Ojha, it is noticed that he is only reiterated the averments as made by the O.Ps in their written version.

Issue no. ii.

            Out of three issues as framed here in this case, Issue no.ii being the pertinent one, is taken up first for consideration.

            Admittedly, the complainant had opted for the insurance policy from the O.Ps and had executed the proposal form with the O.Ps for the same thereby abiding himself to the terms and conditions of the said policy.  He himself had opted to pay the monthly premiums through ECS mode.  The documents as available on record goes to show that the ECS transactions for the premiums were dishonoured which was intimated to the complainant by the O.Ps through their letters dt.8.11.20 and 30.11.20.  Due to non-payment of the premiums within the stipulated period the policy had lapsed.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service of the O.Ps for the said insurance policy of the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it is concluded that the complaint case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member