Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/257/2020

Sanjiv Raj Sood S/o Ram Dayal Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Life insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Shishan Dutt

17 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.257 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 10.08.2020

                                                     Date of decision:17.01.2022

                         

Sanjiv Raj Sood w/o Shri Ram Dayal Sood, resident of house No.1247, Sector 13,  Near Holly Child  School, Thanesar, Kurukshetra 136118.

.                                     …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO -7 & 8, near ICICI  Bank, Sector 17,Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

2. Max Life Insurance Company Limited NB-13, 11rg Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon – 122-015 through its Manager/Director.

….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Shishan Dutt Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.R.K.Kaushik Adv . for the Ops.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanjiv Raj  Sood  against  Max Life Insurance Company Limited  etc. the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant   upon the allurement of agent of Ops has purchased the policy vide No. 120348008  namely  Max Life Guaranteed Income Plan 12 pay plan from  the Ops on 6.05.2016 and as such the complainant is consumer qua the Ops as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the complainant not paid the further premium as policy terms and conditions are not same as told by the agent at the time of purchase of the  policy, so he is not interest in keeping the said policy  and the complainant requested the Ops to cancel  the policy and requested them to make the payment of the amount paid by her but with no vain. It is submitted that the premium payable in  respect of the said policy was for a period of six years from the effective date of coverage and the complainant has paid two years premium. The Ops have received Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant from the effective date of coverage and the complainant has paid two  years premium. It is  further submitted that duration of coverage is twelve years from the date of policy. The complainant requested the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.4.00 lacs paid by the complainant but till date the OP did not return the amount to the complainant. The complainant visited the office of Ops and requested to return his amount but they failed to do so despite written request dated 14.07.2020 given by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,98,000/- alongwith interest and compensation for the mental agony and harassment  caused to her and the litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is subm9itted that the complainant after due deliberation and pondering over the policy submitted her dully signed proposal form to the Ops. The terms  and conditions of the policy are strict adherence to the norms set by the IRDA and were  duly communicated to the complainant. The OP has taken all necessary precautions and has kept the complainant adequately informed of her policy terms and conditions. The complainant had herself chosen to opt for  insurance plan  No. 120348008  namely  Max Life Guaranteed Income Plan 12 pay plan on6.5.2016 and the same was dispatched through speed post vide Speed Post No.EH751463620IN which was dully received by the complainant. The freelook period was given to the complainant for the confirmation of the policy of insurance.  During  the free look period, the complainant fails to submit any of objections relating to dissatisfaction with any of the terms and conditions mentioned   under the policy which itself amounts admission of the complainant qua all the terms and conditions. It  is the basic condition of the policy of insurance.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically by the Ops and preliminary objections regarding  maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, estopple, suppression of true and material facts and  it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed her  evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-3 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant   upon the allurement of agent of Ops has purchased the policy vide No. 120348008 namely Max Life Guaranteed Income Plan 12 pay plan from  the Ops on 6.05.2016 and as such the complainant is consumer qua the Ops as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further argued that the  complainant not paid the further premium as policy terms and conditions are not same as told by the agent at the time of purchase of the  policy, so he is not interest in keeping the said policy  and the complainant requested the Ops to cancel  the policy and requested them to make the payment of the amount paid by her but with no vain. It is argued that the premium payable in  respect of the said policy was for a period of six years from the effective date of coverage and the complainant has paid two years premium. The Ops have received Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant from the effective date of coverage and the complainant has paid two  years premium. It is  further argued  that duration of coverage is twelve years from the date of policy. The complainant requested the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.4.00 lacs paid by the complainant but till date the OP did not return the amount to the complainant. The complainant visited the office of Ops and requested to return his amount but they failed to do so despite written request dated 14.07.2020 given by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

8.             The learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued  that the complainant after due deliberation and pondering over the policy submitted her dully signed proposal form to the Ops. The terms  and conditions of the policy are strict adherence to the norms set by the IRDA and were  duly communicated to the complainant. The OP has taken all necessary precautions and has kept the complainant adequately informed of her policy terms and conditions. The complainant had herself chosen to opt for  insurance plan  No. 120348008  namely  Max Life Guaranteed Income Plan 12 pay plan on6.5.2016 and the same was dispatched through speed post vide Speed Post No.EH751463620IN which was dully received by the complainant. The freelook period was given to the complainant for the confirmation of the policy of insurance.  It is argued that during  the free look period, the complainant fails to submit any of objections relating to dissatisfaction with any of the terms and conditions mentioned   under the policy which itself amounts admission of the complainant qua all the terms and conditions. It  is the basic condition of the policy of insurance. Thus, it is argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops..

9.             After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. In this case the policy in question was purchased by the complainant May 2016  and the present complaint has been filed on 10.08.2020 after a period of about four years. The limitation for filing a consumer complaint as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the present complaint is barred by limitation.

                Further, the stand taken by the Ops that the complainant has failed to return the policy within the freelook period seems to be justified. The policy in question was dispatched to the complainant on 6.05.2016   and the same was dispatched through speed post vide Speed Post No. No.EH751463620IN which was duly received for the confirmation of the policy of insurance. During the free look period, the complainant failed to submit any of the objections relating to the dissatisfaction with any of the terms or conditions mentioned in the policy. As per own version of the complainant he failed to pay subsequent  installments of premium. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to refund  of the premium amount as claimed by her. Therefore, on this ground also the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed.

10.            In view of our above  discussion and findings we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed without any relief to the complainant. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 17.01.2022.                                              President.

 

                                Member             Member.