DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 108 of 08-04-2015

Decided on : 29-04-2015

1. Ganga Dass Joshi S/o Sadhu Ram R/o Sunam Near Model Basic School, Ram Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur 148028

2. Bimla Joshi W/o Ganga Dass Joshi S/o Sadhu Ram, R/o Sunam, Near Model Basic School, Ram Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur 148 028.

…...Complainants

Versus

1. The Managing Director, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office – Max House, 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi India

2. Parminder Singh Office Bearer, Max New York Life Insurance, 2765-B, G.T Road, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. Surinder Mohan, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. R P Singh, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Not summoned.

O R D E R

Surinder Mohan, President

1. By this order, the complaint is being ordered to be returned to the complainants at preliminary stage, to be presented before the Forum of appropriate jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts are that OP issued two life insurance policies in the name of complainants on 25-12-2006 and 28-12-2006. The said policies were to be matured in the year 2020-2021. The premium amount of said policies was Rs. 16,450/- of each policy. The complainants had duly deposited two premiums but due to some domestic problem, they could not continue their third premium which was due in the year 2008. In the year 2009, complainants approached OPs and requested to continue the policies by depositing premium amount. OP asked complainants to get medically examined in order to continue the policies. The complainants followed and duly complied with the direction and got checked themselves medically from the approved doctor of OP namely Dr. Satpal Singla, Singla Nursing Home, Sunam on 15-10-2010. Thereafter complainants duly deposited installments i.e. Rs. 16,450/-and Rs. 11,025/- in respect of both the policies with OP alongwith medical certificates. OP had acknowledged third premium amount and medical certificates from the complainants. In January, 2010, OP No. 2 returned back third premium amount to the complainants vide letter dated 18-01-2010 and demanded Health Declaration Form and medical report. The complainants had duly submitted their medical certificates and other required documents at the time of deposit of 3^rd premium with OP. Complainants again approached OP to verify about the return of third premium amount and missing medical certificates which were submitted by complainants in the office of OP at Sangrur. But, instead of satisfactory answer, OP has been continuously harassing the complainants. Complainants made written request to refund two deposited premium amount alongwith interest. Instead of making payment, OP is delaying the matter on various pretexts. The matter is still continue through correspondence between the parties and policies have not been lapsed till now. It is further pleaded that policy documents were prepared by OP No. 2 at Bathinda and premium was paid at Bathinda. OP issued letter from Bathinda. Hence, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Complainants have placed on file copies of Proposal Forms of both the complainants; Life Insurance Premium Receipts; copy of letter dated 18-1-2010; copy of Cheque dated 19-1-2010 for Rs. 15,540/- payable to Ganga Dass; copy of Cheque dated 19-1-2010 for Rs. 11,025/- payable to Bimla Joshi. Copies of letter dated 8-3-2010 and 27-4-2010 sent to Authorised Authority, Max New York Life Insurance, New Delhi. Copies of letter dated 25-6-2010, 19-6-2010 and 31-12-2014 sent to OP No. 1. Complainant also placed on file copies of letters dated 19-3-2010 and 20-1-15 sent by Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. Copy of letter dated 10-6-2010 sent by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.

4. We have heard learned counsel for complainants and have gone through the file.

5. Learned counsel for complainants has referred that proposal forms were filled at Bathinda. Page No. 5 of proposal forms show the address of witness which is that of Bathinda. This document does not bestow territorial jurisdiction of this Forum because the declaration submitted by the corporate agent was signed by him at Bathinda. There is no document on file to establish that complainants ever deposited any amount at any such Bathinda Branch nor any such Branch has been made as a party. There is no allegation against Parminder Singh OP No. 2 in any manner and it seems that Parminder Singh has been made as a party only to create territorial jurisdiction at Bathinda. It is a specific pleading in para No. 17 that premium was paid at Bathinda but there is no receipt on the file in this regard. There is no prima facie document on the file to show that any policy or any receipt was ever generated at Bathinda whereas renewal receipt dated 21-12-2007 was issued at Sangrur by OP No. 1. The payment receipts dated 1-8-2009 and 25-9-2009 are also carrying stamp of Sangrur Branch. In the letter dated 8-3-2010 sent by complainants to OP No. 1, it is clearly mentioned that they deposited premium alongwith medical examination slip on 16-10-2009 in Sangrur Office although examined by Dr. Sat Pal Singla on 15-10-2010. Copy of this letter was also sent to Sangrur and Gurgaon office and Ombudsman. Letter dated 27-4-2010 was also addressed to OP No. 1. Even the first premium amount cheque as filled in Proposal Form was issued from the account of HDFC Bank Branch Sangrur. There is nothing on file to hold, at this stage, that any part of cause of action has accrued at Bathinda. Be it so, complainants have not made Bathinda Branch as a party. Learned counsel for complainants has relied upon 2002(3) CPJ 205 with the title Superintendent of Post Office & Anr Vs. Harbux Singh & Anr., vide which Hon'ble Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, has discussed issue of payment of National Saving Certificates and Hon'ble State Commission, U.P was pleased to observe that by virtue of Rule 19 of National Savings Certificate (Vth issue rules), certificates are encashable at the Post Office at which it stands registered. There is a proviso attached to this rule which shows that the certificate can be encashed at any post office if the officer-in-charge of that post office is satisfied on production of identity slip or on verification from the office of its registration that the person presenting the certificate for encashment is entitled thereto. We have gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant and are of the considered opinion that facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the present case. Thus, facts of this authority are not applicable in the present complaint.

6. Keeping in view the evidence placed on file by the complainants, we are of the opinion that complainants have failed to establish, by placing any cogent and convincing evidence on file, that any part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainants against a proper receipt. Skeleton papers, copy of complaint and copies of documents be retained. Complainant may approach the Forum of appropriate territorial jurisdiction, if so advised.

7. Let certified copy of order be communicated to complainants free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced :

   29-04-2015

   (Surinder Mohan )

   President

    

(Jarnail Singh)

Member