Haryana

Sonipat

CC/339/2015

Rajesh Kumar S/o Dalal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Rathee

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.339 of 2015

                             Instituted on:15.09.2015                                       Date of order:20.07.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Dalal Singh, resident of Bad Malik,  tehsil Rai, distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office 11^th and 12^th floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon, 122002 Haryana through its Branch Manager.

2. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd office Max House, 3^rd floor, 1 Dr Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020 through its RM/BM.

3. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Ist Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Sector 14, Sonepat through its BM.

4.Sumit Sharma Advisor of Max New York Life Ins. Amway India Enterprise, NK Towers, Opp IB College, GT road, Panipat.

                                                                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Ajay Rathee Adv. for complainant.

         Sh. Joginder Kuhar Adv. for respondent no.l to 3.

          Respondent no.4 ex-parte on 31.03.2016.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L.GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the respondent no.1 met the complainant at his house and explained the complainant about the plan of Max Life Insurance which is for 20 years.  The complainant accepted the plan of insurance and paid Rs.20,000/- yearly for his insurance for 20 years.  The complainant was insured by the respondents vide policy bearing no.563496512 in the year 2010.  The complainant also deposited on 25.10.2011 Rs.20005/- and thirdly on 13.10.2012 Rs.20055/- i.e. total amount of Rs.60060/- has been deposited by the complainant in the first three year.  Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the respondent no.3 and asked for surrender of the policy. But the respondents told the complainant to deposit five premium only then he can withdraw the amount of policy.  Thereafter the complainant also deposited fourth installment on 31.10.2013 of Rs.20055/- and fifth installment was paid on 28.10.2014 for Rs.20055/-.  The complainant thereafter went to the office of the respondent no.3 on 4.9.2015 and an application for surrender of policy was given to the respondent no.3, but of no use and the complainant had to come back without any sufficient reason and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 to 3 appeared and filed their joint written statement, whereas respondent no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.03.2016.

          The respondents no.1 to 3 in their joint written statement has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  The policy was issued by the respondents no.1 to 3 on 30.10.2010 but the present complaint is filed in the year 2015.  A policy no.563496512 was issued for the policy term of 20 years and the policy premium paying term 6 years from the effective date of coverage for the basic sum assured of Rs.154000/- and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrongs.  Every policy documents sent by the company to the policy holder is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly states that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under free look period.  The complainant never approached the respondents no.1 to 3 for surrender of the policy. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as he is not suffered any kind of harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondents no.1 to 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also submitted the written arguments in support of his case.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant was insured by the respondents vide policy bearing no.563496512 in the year 2010.  The complainant also deposited on 25.10.2011 Rs.20005/- and thirdly on 13.10.2012 Rs.20055/- i.e. total amount of Rs.60060/- has been deposited by the complainant in the first three y ear.  Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the respondent no.3 and asked for surrender of the policy. But the respondents told the complainant to deposit five premium only then he can withdraw the amount of policy.  Thereafter the complainant also deposited fourth installment on 31.10.2013 of Rs.20055/- and fifth installment was paid on 28.10.2014 for Rs.20055/-.  The complainant thereafter went to the office of the respondent no.3 on 4.9.2015 and an application for surrender of policy was given to the respondent no.3, but of no use and the complainant had to come back without any sufficient reason and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  The policy was issued by the respondents no.1 to 3 on 30.10.2010 but the present complaint is filed in the year 2015.  A policy no.563496512 was issued for the policy term of 20 years and the policy premium paying term 6 years from the effective date of coverage for the basic sum assured of Rs.154000/- and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrongs.  Every policy documents sent by the company to the policy holder is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly states that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under free look period.  The complainant never approached the respondents no.1 to 3 for surrender of the policy. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as he is not suffered any kind of harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondents no.1 to 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,170/- with the respondents.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to return the amount of policy to the tune of Rs.100170/-  with interest or fund value.

          As per the complainant, he went to the office of the respondent no.3 on 4.9.2015 and moved an application for the surrender of the policy.  In our view, it was the duty of the respondents no.1 to 3 to deal with the matter of the complainant and they should have made the payment of the surrendered value to the complainant.  But the request of the complainant was not considered by the respondent no.1 to 3 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to refund the deposited amount to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly qua respondents no.1 to 3 and stands dismissed qua respondent no.4 since we find no deficiency in service on his part.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both

the parties free of costs.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)          (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 20.07.2016