Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/289/2016

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

I.S Sihag

11 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.289/2016.

Date of Instt.:  04.11.2016.

Date of Decision: 08.06.2017.

Raman Kumar son of Hans Raj, resident of House No.41 Town (Partly), Ward No14, Near Hanuman Mandir, Sunder Nagar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

..Complainant.

     Versus

1. MAX Life Insurance Company Ltd 11^th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon-122002 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Competent Authority/concerned person.

 

2. Axis Bank Fatehabad through Branch Manager.

 

..Opposite parties.

Before:                 Smt. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Presiding Member.

                             Sh. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Inder Singh Sihag, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vinod Godara, counsel for the OP No.1.                                             Sh. Amit Wadhera, counsel for the OP No.2.

ORDER     

 

                   Sh.Raman Kumar-complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he had obtained an insurance policy No.887020204 from OP No.1 through OP No.2 by making a first installment of Rs.19,705/- as premium. It has been further averred that the OPs had assured that in case the complainant discontinued the policy within first three years then the amount so deposited by him would be refunded without any interest and in case the complainant discontinued the policy after three years then the money deposited by the complainant would be refunded along with interest. The complainant had deposited two installments of Rs.19705/- each thereafter the complainant did not wish to continue to his policy and requested the Ops to refund the deposited amount of Rs.39,410/-

2.                It is stated in the complaint that complainant is permanent citizen of India and is resident of village Sadhanwas, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad. Later on, he shifted to Holland and he used to visit India time and again to look after his property. The complainant previously had given general power of attorney to his brother Rajender Singh to look after his property and after his death, he appointed Ranjit Singh son of Rajender Singh as his general power of attorney. The complainant obtained a Max Life Insurance policy from opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 vide policy No.876118209 on 23.11.2012 for a period of 30 years and date of its maturity is 23.11.2044 and its annual installment was Rs.49,999-47Ps. The complainant deposited first installment with opposite party no.1 at the time of receiving the policy and next installment was due in the month of November, 2013 and the premium was to be paid through opposite party no.2. The complainant used to visit India when his health allowed for traveling. Now, the complainant is about 67 years old and he is not being allowed by his family members to travel India from Hollan alone specially to deposit the installment of the policy. The complainant does not want to continue the account from which the installment was to be paid. The complainant also does not want to continue his insurance policy further due to above mentioned circumstances and informed in this regard to the opposite parties not to withdraw any payment from the account of complainant in lieu of installment of above said policy. The complainant also wants to get back the amount of his first installment deposited with the opposite party no.1. The complainant has come to know that the policy has been issued after concealing the real facts and it came to his notice later on when he saw the documents. It is further stated that complainant also sent legal notice to the opposite party no.1 through his counsel but the opposite party no.1 did not give any reply to the notice. The complainant also sent a reminder to the opposite party but to no effect. Hence, this complaint. The complainant has prayed that opposite party no.1 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,999-47ps. alongwith interest @18% per annum and be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment etc. as he has to visit the office of opposite party no.1 from Holland to India on several occasions and suffered loss of money and time.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein it has been averred that terms and conditions of the policy are in strict adherence to norms set by IRDA and were duly communicated to the complainant. The policy of the complainant cannot be cancelled and the premium cannot be refunded as request for the same has been made outside the Free Look Period, hence there exists no cause of action with the complainant to file the complaint. Moreover, on account of non receipt of the premium due on 23.11.2013, the policy has been lapsed. The complainant duly received the policy documents. If the complainant was aggrieved with the plan provided to him, he should have returned the policy within the Free Look Period according to Clause 6(2) of the IRDA regulations, 2002, however, no grievances were raised. It is for the first time by way of this complaint that the complainant has raised allegations of concealment and false preparation of policy which in itself manifests that the same is an afterthought to seek refund of the premium. The policy in question has been lapsed on account of non receipt of the premium due on 23.11.2013 and the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant regarding same vide letter dated 4.12.2013 and subsequently vide policy lapse intimation dated 23.12.2013 and 30.12.2013. It has been further averred that complainant underwent medical examination before issuance of said policy and thereafter, the policy was issued to the complainant. On 2.4.2013, the answering opposite party received a legal notice wherein the answering opposite party was asked to cancel the policy and refund the initial premium on the ground that the complainant will not be traveling to India anytime soon due to health reasons. The opposite party no.1 was also informed that the complainant is in the process of discontinuing his bank account. It is pertinent to mention here that no allegations with respect to the features of the policy were ever made by the complainant. It has been further averred that vide letter dated 14.5.2013, the answering opposite party replied to the legal notice, expressing its inability to cancel the policy on the said ground and refund the premium as the said request was made outside the free look period. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4.                Opposite party no.2 contested the complaint by filing written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding concealment of facts, complaint is time barred; jurisdiction and cause of action. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the ambit of Consumer as per CP Act as the opposite party No.2 has not charged any premium of the insurance policy and there is no contract between the complainant and OP No.2. All the risks and liabilities were covered by the OP No.1 who issued the policy to the complainant. The OP No.2 is only provided the bank services for the people to deposit and withdraw the money. The OP No.2 is only a corporate agent/facilitator and the actual issuance is issued by the insurance company i.e. OP No.1.  It is submitted that policy was issued by opposite party no.1 in favour of the complainant and answering opposite party played a role of an agent between the complainant and opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 never received any instruction from complainant not to pay the next premium to the opposite party no.1. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint qua opposite party no.2 has been prayed for.

5.                 The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh as Ex.CW1/A and documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Reena Behl, Assistant Manager as Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexures R1 to R10.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.                There is no dispute that complainant obtained Max Life Insurance policy from the opposite party no.1 vide policy No.876118209 on 23.11.2012 which is valid for a period of 30 years and its date of maturity is 23.11.2044. There is also no dispute that complainant paid first annual premium of Rs.49,999-47Ps. to the opposite party no.1. According to the complainant he is about 67 years old and permanently resides in Holland and does not want to continue the above said insurance policy as due to his health problem, his family members do not allow him to visit India for depositing the premiums of the policy. He also wants to close his account maintained with the opposite party no.2. However, according to the opposite party no.1, the policy cannot be cancelled and premium paid by the complainant cannot be refunded to him as the request for the same has been made outside the Free Look Period. There is substance in this contention of the opposite party no.1 because clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question provides fifteen days time to get cancelled the policy in question. The said clause is reproduced as under:-

                   3. Free Look 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 fifteen days from the date of receipt of this policy. In such an event the Premiums paid less proportionate risk premium for the period of cover, any medical fees and expense incurred on stamp charges by the company will be refunded without interest.”

8.                From the above said clause of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is evident that complainant should have made a written request for cancellation of the policy within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the policy in question which has not been done by the complainant. Moreover, the policy in question stands lapsed due to non payment of premium due on 23.11.2013. So, now the complainant cannot claim for refund of premium paid by him. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in an authority cited as Surinder Pal Kaur Versus Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another 2014 (2) CPJ 138, has held that “Policy not surrendered within free look period- Calculation disputed- Complaint alleging deficiency in service- District Forum allowed complaint- Appeal against- Held, detailed calculations are based on formula mentioned in schedule and same has been duly explained- One proposal form filled by complainant for investment in scheme, was accepted by ops and complainant having failed to surrender same within free look period, she is bound by terms and conditions of policy- Deficiency in service not proved- Appeal dismissed.

9.                The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since, in the present case complainant has failed to surrender the policy within free look period of 15 days, complainant is not entitled to refund of premium paid by him. So, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 29.09.2015

                                                                   

                                                                   (Pushpa Mehta)

                                                                   Presiding Member

                                                                   Distt.Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

 

(Ranbir Singh Panghal)                                                                            

   Member