Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/511

Brij Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New Yark Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                      C.C. No:511 of 22.07.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:06.08.2014

 

 Brij Mohan Sood s/o Sh.Madan Lal Sood r/o National Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus 

1.Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Max House, 3^rd Floor, 1 Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020, India through Branch Manager.

2.Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,Operation Centre, 90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015, through authorized signatory/Branch Officer.

3.Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,through its Branch Officer, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

                   Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.                       

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.

         

Present:      Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

 

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that Sh.Brij Mohan Sood(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Max House, 3^rd Floor, 1 Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020, India through Branch Manager and others (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) with the brief averments that the complainant approached by Mrs.Shallu Jain being agent/ broker Code No.113296 of Ops at Ludhiana in the month of December 2006 with gorgeous and entices scheme of their company namely Max New York Life Insurance Co.Ltd. and further allured that in case, complainant takes the policy of their company, then he will be rewarded double of the amount at the end of third year, if he continuously paid the premium of three years to the tune of Rs.59,410/- per year. Being allured, the complainant signed printed proposal form at Ludhiana as well as submitted necessary documents for taking such benefit under the scheme as represented by the agent on behalf of Ops and thereafter, the complainant received the policy bearing No.428097026 dated 26.12.2006 in the name of complainant being policy holder by depositing first installment. When the complainant visited to office of Ops and deposited the next year premium on 22.4.2008, then after consulting to one official of Ops company, complainant came to know about the fact that the benefits of the policy were not same as was represented by the agent of Ops at the time of getting approval for the policy from the complainant. Complainant thereafter, started visiting to the office of Ops for cancellation of the abovesaid policy but Ops have failed to cancel the policy on receiving the information of cancellation of policy and having specific knowledge that complainant has made the request to cancel the above policy on material ground of misguiding and mis-representation. Complainant various times tried to know about the net value of the premium of his policy and for purpose of cancellation and refund amount so deposited by the complainant, but no satisfactory answer was given to the complainant. Complainant further on 24.8.2012 requested branch officer of Ops at Ludhiana to provide information about status of his policy and its fund value, but even then, no access of information was given to the complainant on their part and every time, complainant has been mis-represented by the officials of Ops by postponing the matter on ground that the request has been sent for cancellation of policy of the complainant and the same will be cancelled when they will get approval from their head branch and by false assurances that said request of complainant under process and complainant will be updated about the status of his request. After being harassed and humiliated from the malicious acts played by the Ops and failure on the part of the Ops to provide the information regarding status of policy, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.3.2013 and 30.6.2014 for refund of the amount. However, despite that Ops failed to pay back the amount of Rs.1,19,410/- to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record copy of premium receipts issued by the Ops qua the payment of premium paid by the complainant, copy of premium notice qua the payment of due amount, copy of letter dated 10.2.2009 issued by the Ops qua the information of policy lapsed as the complainant has failed to pay the due amount,  copy of letter sent by the complainant to the Manager, Max New York Life, Ludhiana for sending the information about the policy in question of complainant and copies of legal notices dated 25.3.2014 and 30.6.2014.

3.                It is apparently clear from the contents of the complaint that the complainant had purchased the policy in question on 26.12.2006 from the Ops and on 22.4.2008, when the complainant had come to know about the terms and conditions of the policy, he represented the Ops for the cancellation of the policy in question. Copy of letter dated 10.2.2009 reveals that due intimation was given to the complainant with regard to the lapse of the policy by the Ops vide this letter dated 10.2.2009. So, it is proved fact on record that cause of action has been accrued to the complainant after making representation to the Ops for the cancelation of the policy in the year 2008 and further accrued from the letter dated 10.2.2009 when due intimation qua the lapse of policy in question was given to him and also called upon to make the payment in order to get the policy reinstated. But as per the version of the complainant himself that he did not pay any further installment of premium to the Ops in order to get the policy reinstated. So, as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant was required to file the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action accrued in his favour. However, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 22.7.2014 which is clearly time barred.  

4.                Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides the period of Limitation Period, which describes as under:-

i)The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

5.                Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as State Bank of India vs.M/s.B.S.Agriculture Industries (I)-(2009) CPJ-481, wherein, it was held that the provisions of Section 24-A are peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. That the expression, shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. That the Consumer Fora’s were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation. Para -8 of the said judgment reads as under:-

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘ shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”   

6.                From the perusal of the above said provisions, it is clear that the present complaint is clearly time barred. Furthermore, the complainant has also not moved any application for condonation of delay explaining his sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and further, he has not assigned any sufficient or specific reasons in the complaint for not filing the present complaint within time.

7.                So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that complaint of the complainant is time barred and the same is not admitted. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

             (Priti Malhotra)           (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L.Ahuja)

                Member                               Member                     President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:06.08.2014

(Gurpreet Sharma)

 

Brij Mohan Sood vs. Max New York Life Ins.

 

06.08.2014

Present:      Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

 

                   Arguments have been heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is not admitted for hearing being time barred. File be consigned to record room.

 

           (Priti Malhotra)                    (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L.Ahuja)

  Member                               Member                       President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:06.08.2014