Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.         The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainant no.2 is minor aged about 10 years, he is living with his mother Amarpal Kaur complainant no.1 who got no interest adverse to that of the minor complainant no.2. So the present complaint on behalf of complainant no.2 is being filed through his mother Amarpal Kaur complainant no.1. Savpreet Singh husband of the complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 was insured with your Insurance Company vide policy no.604689505 dated 22.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, maturity date 22-3-2028. According to the terms and conditions of the above mentioned policy, the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid by Savpreet Singh every year for total five years and at the time of maturity of said policy, the opposite parties had to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to him. Savpreet Singh paid the first, second and third installments/premiums of Rs.1,00,000/- on 22-3-2018, 19.03.2019 and 20.03.2020 respecitvely to the opposite party no.1. The opposite parties issued receipts of the same. The above mentioned amount of three premiums were paid to the opposite parties through bank account of the deceased Savpreet Singh and the same was accepted by the opposite parties, SO there is no dispute relating to payment of these premiums/installments. Savpreet Singh has died on 16-9-2020 at Moga. Savpreet Singh has died leaving complainant no.1 his widow and complainant no.2 his minor son, as his legal heirs. In the week of September, 2020 the complainant no.1 visited the office of opposite party no.1 and informed regarding the death of her husband Savpreet Singh. The opposite parties paid Rs.103589/- regarding the death of Savpreet Singh vide claim reference no. 202036101028 in respect of the above mentioned policy and the said amount was credited to the account no. 920010034423325 in Axis Bank. The opposite parties issued letter dated 31.12.2020 regarding the said payment, addressed to the complainant. After that the opposite parties got completed various formalities from the complainants for payment of total assured amount of Rs. 10 lacs and promised to pay the total amount of Rs. 10 lacs in amount was short future. After that the complainants approached the opposite parties a number of time and requested them to pay the amount of policy,  but of no avail. The complainants have been facing various problems due to untimely death of Savpreet Singh and she has dire need of cash amount. Vide instant complainant prayed for the following relief:-

a)       Opposite parties may be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs10,00,000/-alongwith upto date interest with regard to policy no.604689505.

b)      To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of damages as well as harassment suffered by complainant.

c)       And any other appropriate relief which this Commission deems fit and proper be granted to the complainant.

2.         Opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint taking preliminary objection inter alia that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is in entirety vague, false, vexatious and frivolous and is required to be dismissed in limine. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of Opposite Party. The Complainant had with malafide and dishonest intention not only concealed the material facts but had also twisted and distorted the same to suit her convenience and to mislead this Hon'ble Commission. The complaint therefore deserves outright dismissal. The present complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party. In absence of any cause of action against the Answering Opposite Party, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the replying Answering Opposite Party as defined under Section 2(11)(g of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The policy is a legal contract between the policyholder and insurance company and the parties to the said contract are bound by its terms and conditions. The terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract. In the present case, the Life Assured was required to pay the premium annually for a period of 5 years. The policy was issued on 22.03.2018 and the Life Assured paid only one yearly premium under the policy. Thereafter the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premiums under the policy which fell due from 22.03.2019 therefore the policy lapsed. The Life Assured died on 16.09.2020 i.e. when the policy was not in force. Since the policy was not in force at the time of death of the Life Assured; no benefits becomes payable under the policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the Answering Opposite Party. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the Answering Opposite Party. Further alleges that the policy is a contract between the parties and both the parties are bound by the said terms and conditions of the policy. The instant complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission. Further alleges that Opposite Party had received a duly filled and signed Proposal form from the Deceased Life Assured (Late Savpreet Singh) for issuance of the subject policy in March, 2018. Based on the information provided the proposal from and as per the requirement of the Life Assured the subject policy was issued to the Life Assured. The details of the Policy issued are mentioned below:

Further alleges that in accordance to Clauses 4(1) and 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by the Opposite Party is accompanied with a copy of the proposal form signed by the applicant and a welcome letter which clearly mentions that in case policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the "Free Look Cancellation Period". On 26.12.2020 the Answering Opposite Party received death claim intimation from the Complainant informing that the Life Assured died on 16.09.2020. The claim was evaluated and it was noted that in the present case, the Life Assured was required to pay the premium annually for a period of 5 years. The policy was issued on 22.03.2018 and the Life Assured paid only one yearly premium under the policy. Thereafter the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premiums under the policy which fell due from 22.03.2019. The Answering party had informed the Policyholder that her ECS mandate form had been rejected by the bank as wrong account number had been shared. The answering Opposite Party sent the premium renewal intimation dated 08.03.2020, 23.02.2020 & 24.02.2020, However, despite receipt of the renewal intimation the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premium therefore the policy lapsed on 22.03.2019. Discontinuance letter dated 29-05-2020 was also sent in this regard. The Life Assured died on 16.09.2020 i.e. when the policy was not in force. Since the policy was not in force at the time of death of the Life Assured; no benefits becomes payable under the policy. Therefore the claim was rejected and the premium paid under the policy was refunded and the same was informed to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.12.2020. The present complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Opposite parties also put reliance on certain citations:-consumer national redressal commission new delhi revision petition no. 2948 of 2017 (against the order dated 26/04/2017 in appeal no. 124/2014 of the state commission maharashtra) 1. life insurance corporation of india versus anruan and anrs decided on 08.05.2018 and consumer national redressal commission new delhi revision petition no. 2610 of 2017 (against the order dated 10/03/2017 in appeal no. 2/2017 of the state commission punjab) 1. ranjit singh versus hdfc standard life insurance company decided on 04.06.2018. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.         Complainant also filed replication to the written version of the opposite parties, in which he denied all the objections raised by the opposite parties in the written version.

4.         To prove his contentions complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11.

5.         To rebut the evidence of complainant, ld. Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Anchal Yadav, Senior Manager Legal Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

6.         The contentions of the complainant are that complainant no.2 is minor aged about 10 years, he is living with his mother Amarpal Kaur complainant no.1. So the present complaint on behalf of complainant no.2 is being filed through his mother Amarpal Kaur complainant no.1. Savpreet Singh husband of the complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 was insured with your Insurance Company vide policy no.604689505 dated 22.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, maturity date 22-3-2028. According to the terms and conditions of the above mentioned policy, the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid by Savpreet Singh every year for total five years and at the time of maturity of said policy, the opposite parties had to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to him. Savpreet Singh paid the first, second and third installments/premiums of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 22-3-2018, 19.03.2019 and 20.03.2020 respectively to the opposite party no.1. The opposite parties issued receipts of the same. Savpreet Singh has died on 16-9-2020 at Moga. In the week of September, 2020 the complainant no.1 visited the office of opposite party no.1 and informed regarding the death of her husband Savpreet Singh. The opposite parties paid Rs.103589/- regarding the death of Savpreet Singh vide claim reference no. 202036101028 in respect of the above mentioned policy and the said amount was credited to the account no. 920010034423325 in Axis Bank. After that the opposite parties got completed various formalities from the complainants for payment of total assured amount of Rs. 10 lacs and promised to pay the total amount of Rs. 10 lacs in amount was short future. After that the complainants approached the opposite parties a number of time and requested them to pay the amount of policy, but to no effect.

7.         Ld. counsel for the opposite parties have repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that in the present case, the Life Assured was required to pay the premium annually for a period of 5 years. The policy was issued on 22.03.2018 and the Life Assured paid only one yearly premium under the policy. Thereafter the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premiums under the policy which fell due from 22.03.2019. The Opposite Party sent the premium renewal intimation dated 08.03.2020, 23.02.2020 & 24.02.2020, However, despite receipt of the renewal intimation the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premium therefore the policy lapsed on 22.03.2019. Discontinuance letter dated 29-05-2020 was also sent in this regard. The Life Assured died on 16.09.2020 i.e. when the policy was not in force. Since the policy was not in force at the time of death of the Life Assured; no benefits becomes payable under the policy. Therefore the claim was rejected and the premium paid under the policy was refunded and the same was informed to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.12.2020.

8.         It is not dispute that deceased life assured purchased the impugned policy from the opposite parties. The main dispute between the parties is that complainant alleged that deceased life assured paid premium of Rs.1,00,000/- yearly continuously for three years and produced on record copies of the receipts. However contention of the opposite parties is that the policy was issued on 22.03.2018 and the Life Assured paid only one yearly premium under the policy. Thereafter the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premiums under the policy which fell due from 22.03.2019. The Opposite Party sent the premium renewal intimation dated 08.03.2020, 23.02.2020 & 24.02.2020, However, despite receipt of the renewal intimation the Life Assured failed to pay the renewal premium therefore the policy lapsed on 22.03.2019. Discontinuance letter dated 29-05-2020 was also sent in this regard. The Life Assured died on 16.09.2020 i.e. when the policy was not in force. Since the policy was not in force at the time of death of the Life Assured; no benefits becomes payable under the policy. Therefore the claim was rejected and the premium paid under the policy was refunded and the same was informed to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.12.2020. To prove this fact opposite parties also placed on record premium renewal intimation letters dated 08.03.2020 & 24.02.2020 sent by opposite parties to the deceased life assured. Further they produce on record copy of letter dated 31.10.2020, vide which they intimated the complainant regarding refund of the amount of Rs.1,03,589.54.

9.         During the course of arguments ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that copies of the receipts of the premium paid for the year 2019 and 2020, Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 produced on record by the complainant are forged and fabricated, because there are changes in the figures of the 2^nd and 3^rd installment receipts with regard to Agent name. In the original receipt Ex.C2 the name of the Agent mentioned as Harleen Kaur Alagh, however on receipts Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 name of the agent mentioned as Mr.Direct Customer Services Bane Assurance. Moreover original receipt is duly stamped. Moreover, if the complainant is alleged that the receipt is downloaded from the website of the opposite parties, then how the name of the agent changed. Perusal of receipts Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 also show that in the bottom of the page it is mentioned that Scanned with Cam Scanner. So, we do not agree with the contention of the complainant that receipts produced on record as Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 are original one and the same appears to be forged and fabricated. The complainant also failed to produce an iota of evidence to prove the genuineness of the receipts Ex.C3 & Ex.C4. Moreover, the opposite parties has rightly refunded the amount of Rs.1,03,589.54 to the complainant.

9.         In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no force in the complaint of the complainant and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.