Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/728/2013

Raj Kumar S/o .Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravinder Sohi

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                               Complaint No. 728 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 01.10.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 28.08.2017.

 

 

Raj Kumar aged about 52 years, son of Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of House No.9, Ward No.8, Mohalla Kagian, Sadhaura, Sub Teshil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Operation Centre, 90-A Udyog vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015 through its authorized person.

 

2. Axis bank limited Branch office: Sadhaura, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

 

       

           …. Respondents.

                  

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. Ravinder Sohi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                   Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Shri PK Kashyap, Advocate for OP No.2

 

ORDER     (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                       Complainant Raj Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.(hereinafter  the respondents shall be referred as ops).  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant are that complainant obtained a Life Insurance Policy No.843257221 for sum assured Rs.3,15,940/-. The premium of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by the complainant annually for 20 years w.e.f. 27.06.2011. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.50000/-as premium to the OP No.1 through the OP No.2 at the time of obtaining policy. Accordingly as per the schedule, the complainant also paid the second installment of Rs.50,000/- on dated 23.07.2012 with the OP No.1 and a receipt to this effect was also issued to the complainant regarding installment. Since, the complainant is having young children and the marriage of one daughter was settled in the month of October- November, 2013, hence he contacted the said Sanjeev Sanoor and requested that he did not want to continue the policy and requested for refund of the amount paid by him in installments, upon which he stated the complainant to contact with the OP No.2 in this regard. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 and made request for return of the amount paid by the complainant as he was in urgent need of money for the marriage of his daughter, but the OP No.1 has also given no heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant also contacted the OP no.1 many times and disclosed his willingness to withdraw the policy and for return of his amount but the OP No.1 has not given any response to the request of the complainant which clearly shows the malafide and dishonest intention. Since, the complainant does not want to continue the policy and wants to get refund his amount back, but the OPs have not done so, whereas the complainant is in need of the amount, and ultimately the complainant through his counsel got served a registered AD Legal notice dated 22.08.2013 to both the OPs requiring them to return the amount deposited by him as premium and installment of the said policy along with interest thereon within 15 days of receipt of notice, otherwise proper legal action will be initiated against them. The said notice was received by the OPs but has not complied with the same which is a clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on their part. Hence, this complaint and lastly prayed for directed the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% PA and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as at the very outset the OP denies all the averments and contentions made by the complainant in the complaint except those which are specifically adverted to and admitted herein. The OP No.1 further seeks the leave of this Hon’ble Forum to refer and rely upon the proposal policy documents, the correspondence exchanged between the complainant and the OP along with all forms and declarations submitted by the complainant, the relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court and any other relevant documents. Contrary to the stand taken by the complainant of non performance, the OP No.1 claims this opportunity to apprise the Hon’ble Forum of the fact that the complainant had after due deliberation and pondering over the policy submitted his duly signed proposal form, to the OP. The terms and conditions of the policy are in strict adherence to norms set by IRDA and were duly communicated to the complainant. The answering OP has taken all the necessary precautions and has kept the complainant adequately informed of his policy terms and obligations. That the policy no. 843257221 cannot be cancelled and the premium refunded as the request was received well outside the Free Look Period. All the customer of the OP company, in accordance with clause 6(2) of the IRDA  (Protection of Policy holder’s interest) Regulation, 2002, are duly provided the Free Look period/policy review period to review the terms of the policy. That the clause pertaining to the free look period/period review period is laid down explicitly in Clause Policy review period of the policy No. 843257221 policies documents, and reads as under:

POLICY REVIEW PERIOD

Please examine your policy carefully. You may opt to return the original policy to the company with a written request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of this policy. In such an event premiums paid less proportionate risk premium for the period of cover, any medical fees and expenses incurred on stamp charges by the company will be refunded without interest. If the policy is sent by the Post it shall be deemed to have been received by you within three days of posting; No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present case, as the complainant is coming forward almost after the gap of 3 years in and requesting for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium paid towards the said policy, the said complaint is well outside the free look period and the answering OP has at all time adhered to the terms of the policy. Hence, the answering OP was constrained to decline the request of the complainant in accordance with the terms of the policy as the request was received much outside the free look period. Moreover, it is submitted that the policy lapsed due to non payment of the premium. Therefore, it would not be out of place to state that the complainant is making belated allegations with a mala fide intention which have no substance. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 20052 ACJ 570 that the terms and conditions of a contract have to be strictly construed and no variation could be made therein and on merit, it is stated that it was only after receiving the proposal form for the said policy, the OP issued the said policy i.e. policy No.843257221 and dispatched the policy documents for the said policy at the complainants billing address. The said policy plan is Max Life Life gain plus 20 yr 6 pay so; the customer/complainant was to pay the premium as 27^th of June every year till 27.06.2016 and not for 20 years. Further, it is also submitted that the complainant failed to pay the 3^rd premium which was due on 27.06.2013 and therefore subsequently on non payment of the premium, the policy bearing number 843257221 was lapsed. The complainant after the gap of 3 years is coming forward and due to his personal reason requested for the cancellation of the policy and reason requested for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium deposited towards the said policy and therefore, is breaching the contract between the said parties. The complainant never approached the complainant to cancel the policy within 15 days free look period provided to the complainant from the date of receipt of the documents. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.

4.                Learned counsel for the OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is not maintainable; there is no cause of action; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. Complainant has concealed the true and material facts from his Hon’ble Court and has not come with clean hands before this Forum and  on merit it is submitted that earlier one Sanjeev Sanoor was employee of answering OP, However it is denied that he has approached the complainant as alleged, rather the complainant himself visited the premises of answering OP and expressed his desire to purchase a policy which was duly explained to him and the complainant after satisfying himself had purchased the said policy through answering OP. It is submitted that the policy is an agreement between the complainant and OP No.1 and answering OP does not come in the picture. As far as closure of policy is concerned the answering OP or his employee could not do any thing because the said policy could be closed as per terms and conditions of OP No.1 but the complainant with ulterior motive has involved the answering OP in the present complaint. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant qua the OP No.2.

5.                In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents as Annexures C1 to C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Behl, Assistant Manager as Annexure R1/A documents as Annexure R1 /1 to R1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                Learned counsel for the OP no.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ashish Mittal, Manager Axis Bank Ltd. Branch Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and has gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had obtained a Life Insurance Policy No.843257221 for a sum assured of Rs.3,15,940/-  and paid two installments of Rs.50,000/- each i.e. one at the time of obtaining policy and the other on 23.07.2012 to OP No.1. Due to urgent need of money, the complainant contacted OPs for refund /return of the amount deposited by him but in vain.

10.              Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the policy in question cannot be cancelled and the premium deposited cannot he refunded as the request was received well outside the free look period of 15 days as per clause 6(2) of IRDA (Protection of Policy holder’s interest) Regulations 2002, The request of the complainant for refund of amount was rightly declined as per terms and conditions  of policy as the request was received much outside the free look period and the policy had lapsed due to non payment of third installment by the complainant, which was due on 27.06.2013.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the policy is an agreement between complainant and OP No.1 and OP no.2 does not come in the picture. As far as closure of policy is concerned, the OP No.2 or his employee could not do anything because the said policy could be closed as per terms and conditions of OP No.1 and the complainant has unnecessarily involved OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.2.

12.              After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. From the perusal of the entire facts and circumstances mentioned in the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has moved from pillar to post to obtain /refund of the amount lying deposited by him with OP No.1 Insurance Company as he was in urgent need of money due to marriage of his daughter but nobody listened to him. The complainant had invested his hard earned money with the OP No.1 Insurance Company who have failed to disclose in its written statement that where the amount so deposited by the complainant was invested and what was the fate of this amount.

13.              Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to refund Rs.70,000/- out of total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of two installments of Rs.50,000/- each deposited by the complainant (after deducting Rs.30,000/- on account of office expenses, commission of agreement, stamp duty service, service charges etc.) along with interest at @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of the copy of this orders failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.                

Dated: 28.08.2017        

                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                       D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                      AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER