Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 532.
Instituted on : 11.09.2017.
Decided on : 13.02.2019.
Munni w/o Surender R/o H.No.231 ward No.18 Quilla Colony, Jhajjar at present H.No.2256/10, Ram Gopal Colony, Near Jat Bhawan, Rohtak, Mob. No.9812908614.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Max Life Insurance Company Limited, 90-A Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon through its Manager.
- Max Life Insurance Company Limited Delhi Road, Mahindra Complex, 1st floor, Opp. Power House Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Pawadia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra Advocate for OP No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy No.794926360 from the opposite party and has deposited the insurance premium time to time and upto till date, she has deposited an amount of Rs.168000/-. That complainant never applied for refund of the amount but the opposite party sent a cheque of Rs.114692/- as full and final amount. That opposite party has illegally kept the amount of Rs.54000/- of the complainant without any justification or reasonable cause. That complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the remaining amount of Rs.54000/- alongwith interest or to restart her insurance policy but after repeated requests, the respondent did not pay any heed towards her request. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the amount Rs.54000/- alongwith interest in her favour or to restart her insurance policy alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party received only six premium under the policy and the 7th premium was paid after long delay and that is why the amount of Rs.24000/- was refunded to the complainant. Hence only six premium were received under the policy in question. That the complainant failed to revive the policy within grace period. Thereafter, the policy in question was discontinued at the 6th premium stage and at that time, the fund value under the policy was Rs.73380/- and as such the total amount of Rs.114692/- including 7th premium amount and interest etc. were paid to the complainant. That the opposite party as per terms and conditions of the policy in question and as per fixed funds value had refunded the amount. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However opposite party No.2 failed to appear before this Forum despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.10.2017 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.07.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 made a statement that reply already filed in this case be read in evidence as affidavit and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 19.11.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is admitted fact that the complainant had paid the 6 premiums regularly. The policy in question was lapsed on 03.03.2017 but the complainant had deposited the 7th installment premium on 24.03.2017 which was accepted by the opposite parties whereas the policy had already been lapsed. No intimation regarding the lapse of policy was sent by the respondent officials. After depositing the amount of Rs.24000/- by the complainant on 24.03.2017 towards 7th installment, respondent officials have sent an amount of Rs.114662/- vide letter dated 03.11.2017 belatedly after lapse of 8 months. There is a grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties firstly on accepting the premium whereas the policy had already been lapsed and secondly giving the intimation of discontinuation of policy and returning the amount belatedly. They should immediately return the amount as per terms and conditions of the policy but the intimation was given only on 03.11.2017 vide letter Ex.R1.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby dispose of the complaint with direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
