Haryana

StateCommission

A/855/2018

VEENA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GULSHAN NANDWANI

12 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :         855 of 2018

Date of Institution:       09.07.2018

Date of Decision :        12.03.2019

 

 

 

Smt. Veena Rani wife of Sh. Anil Kumar @ Sandeep, resident of House No.5931, Mohalla Khasapura, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Max Life Insurance Company Limited, P.O. Bag No.4371, Kalkaji, Head Post Office, New Delhi-110009 through its Manager.

 

2.      Mr. Jitender (Advisor), Max Life Insurance Company Limited, AXIS Bank, Bawal Chowk, Rewari.

 

3.      Abhishek (Advisor), Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Axis Bank, Bawal Chowk, Rewari.

 

4.      Registered Office: Max House, 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, and New Delhi-110020 through its Manager.

 

5.      Operation Centre, Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.90A, Udyog Vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana) -122015 through its Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Gulshan Nandwani, counsel for the appellant.

                             Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, counsel for respondents No.1, 4 & 5.

                             Service of respondents No.2 & 3 already dispensed with.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

           The complainant, namely, Veena Rani, wife of Shri Anil Kumar @ Sandeep has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby the complaint filed by her under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to indemnify her for an amount of Rs.2,57,708/- alongwith suitable compensation and litigation expenses was allowed to the extent of requiring the opposite parties to refund the first premium installment of Rs.1,28,854/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount was to fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  She has sought modification of the impugned order to the extent of requiring the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,57,708/- alongwith suitable compensation and litigation charges. 

2.      According to the complainant, she took one time premium policy on payment of Rs.1,28,854/- returnable after eleven months.  The premium was deposited but the policy was not issued nor the amount refunded. Rather the complainant received a telephonic message from Max Life Insurance Company Limited for depositing further premium of next year.  On making complaint, she was assured that only if next premium was deposited, then a policy bond will be issued.  She accordingly deposited the next premium but even then neither policy bond was issued nor the amount was refunded.  Hence, the complaint seeking refund of both the installments of Rs.2,57,708/- with interest and compensation.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear despite due service and were accordingly proceeded ex parte.  However, subsequently, the opposite parties appeared and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but the said application was also declined.

4.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the State Commission finds that the Insurance Company had rejected the claim on the ground that the policy in question was issued on 28.09.2012 on annual premium of Rs.1,28,854/-, which was paid for two years and the policy document was delivered at the address of the complainant on 17.10.2012 but the policy was not cancelled being outside the free look period of fifteen days.  However, there is nothing on the file to show when the policy in question was dispatched to the complainant.  As such, not only the premium for the first year but the premium for the second year is also liable to be refunded by the opposite parties.

5.      Resultantly, directions are hereby issued to the opposite parties to refund the second premium of Rs.1,28,854/- on the same analogy as in the case of first premium.  The amount of second premium be also refunded to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall earn interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till the realization of the said amount.

6.      The order of the learned District Forum is accordingly modified and the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.  

 

 

Announced

12.03.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan)

Member

 

(T.P.S. Mann)

President

UK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.