DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 60 of 2019

 

Sri Indrajit Banik,

S/O. Sri Sadhan Banik,

Resident of Bardowali,

P.O.& P.S.-A.D. Nagar,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799003…..................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

11th & 12th  Floor DLF Square Building Jacarand Marg.  

DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-122001. 

 

2. MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 

11th & 12th  Floor DLF Square Building Jacarand Marg.  

DLF City Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002. 

 

3. MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

90-A Udyog Vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122005. 

 

4. The Branch Manager,

MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ,

Sakuntala Road, Near Metro Bazar, 

Agartala Branch, Agartala,

District -Tripura West, Pin-799001.

 

5. MAX New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Peerless General Finance & Insurance Co. Ltd.

Akhaura Road, Agartala,

District- Tripura West, Pin-799001........................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR  (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocate.

 

 

For the O.Ps.    : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :   30/ 12 /2020.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Indrajit Banik, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining against the O.Ps. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a CRPF personnel and he entered into an agreement with the O.P. and obtained a policy bearing No.834102907 dated 05/01/2011. Due to the urgent necessity he had to compel to take loan against his policy on 22/12/2016 for an amount of Rs.69,988/- with condition to repay the said loan amount within a reasonable period. The Complainant had to serve in the most interior and remote places as CRPF personnel and for that reason he could not send installment loan amount in time. Whenever he came to his residence only he had to pay his installment of loan. When enquired the customer care service the Complainant came to know that his policy was lapsed. Then, he requested to the O. P. No.1 in writing to restore the policy. Thereafter, the Complainant send Rs.16,900/- on 10/10/2018 and again Rs.16,900.93/- on 30/10/2018 but the authority of the O.P. No.1 returned the amount of Rs.16,900.93/- on 30/10/2018. It is alleged that the O.P. very intentionally and by act of negligence closed his Insurance Account without any valid reason on the ground of lapse. 

Hence, the Complainant filed complaint petition for recovery of the amount Rs.55,000/- along with interest and costs.

 

2. On the other hand the O.Ps. contested the case by filing joint written statements. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action. It is stated that the Complainant had opted for a Max Mangal Endowment Plan. After understanding the terms and conditions of the plan the Complainant filled up the proposal Form and signed it and offered an initial premium towards the premium under the said plan. As per terms and conditions the premium of the policy was Rs.19,867/-. The policy was issued on 05/01/2011. The policy in question was a participating policy, which entirely depends on the market conditions. In the event of the Policy being cancel, either due to non-payment of premium or due to surrender of the policy, the Company shall then pay the value of the Units, after deducting cancellation charges. The Complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.69,988/- on December 22,2016. Subsequently after taking the loan, the Complainant had neither paid the premium, nor refunded the loan amount and resultantly, due to non-payment of the same, the policy had turned into Auto surrender mode. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of contract of Insurance, the O.P. on 06/04/2018 refunded the surrender value amounting to Rs.11,186.98/- directly to the Complainant's bank account. As the Complainant did not filed up the loan closing Form as such his sending amount could not be credited into his loan account cum policy and due to non-payment of timely premium and refund of loan amount.  

              It is submitted by the O.Ps. to dismiss complaint as there is no deficiency in service as per U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.                                                      

 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 15 documents comprising 46 sheets through a Firisti dated 16/08/2019. The documents are namely Petition, Legal notice, Legal notice reply by Max Office, Legal notice dated 25/03/2019, Payment receipt, Payment Acknowledgment, Policy status Treading, SBI Checked payment on 09/11/2017, Mobile pass book print, Complain report against by the Max Office, SMS print through mobile phone, Indian speed post print, Service Certificate, Voter ID Card etc. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps. side.

   

            On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Sumit Paul, Works as Max Life Insurance Com. Ltd. was examined. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. The said witness has produced 4 documents comprising 35 sheets through a Firisti dated 22/06/2020. The documents are namely Copy of Loan request form, Repayment schedule, Loan Approval Confirmation & Policy documents. On identification the documents have been  marked  as Exhibit A Series.         

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

   

            On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:             

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

           We have heard arguments from both sides. 

           The Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted that the O.P. did not give any reasonable opportunity to the Complainant for making premium as well as the installment of the loan account and also they did not consider the personal problem of the Complainant as he was in service as a CRPF person. Learned Advocate of the Complainant submitted that the O.P. illegally closed down the loan account as well as the Policy even the O.P. did not give any reply the Advocate notice sent to them. It is submitted that the Complainant has good case. He has right to get relief against the O.Ps.

              On the other hand Learned Advocate of the O.Ps. submitted that the date of maturity of Policy was on 05/01/2023. After taking loan of Rs.69,988/- the Complainant paid not a single loan installment and as per terms and conditions of the loan application form it was recovered from the Insurance Policy amount and thereafter the rest amount was refunded to the Complainant. Notice was also given to the Complainant in time to revive the policy but the Complainant was in different so there was no option but to close down the Policy Account.     

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

      For the sake of convenience all points are taken up together for the decision. 

        We have gone through the evidences as adduced from both sides.

       It is admitted fact that the Complainant obtained a policy vide No.834102907 dated 05/01/2011 from the O.P. No.1 for an annual premium of Rs.19,867/-. Due to urgent necessity he took a loan against his policy on 22/12/2016 for an amount of Rs.69,988/- with condition to repay the said loan amount within a reasonable period. But the Complainant failed to repay the loan amount and resultantly due to non payment of loan amount the said policy had turned into Auto Surrender Mode. 

             From the evidence of OPW namely Sri Sumit Pal, it is found that as per terms and conditions of contract of Insurance, they have refunded the surrender value amounting to Rs.11,186.98/- on 06/04/2018 directly to the Complainant's bank account. The OPW at Para-8 of examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that on 20/11/2017 the Complainant refunded the loan amount to the O.P. Insurance Company by a cheque but at that relevant time he has not filled up the duly required loan closing form and as a result, the aforesaid amount could not be credited into his loan account cum policy and due to non-payment of timely premium and refund of loan amount, the policy turned into Auto Surrender Mode. In cross DW-I stated that if policy holder fails to make payment of premium in time, then there will be a penalty. The present case is not relating to default of premium. As per terms and conditions of the disburse of loan it was not required to inform the Lonee about the auto surrender of loan account. DW-I also stated that there was no deficiency of service on their part. 

              On the other hand from the evidence of the Complainant(PW-I) we found that at Para-4 of examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that he was not able to repayment of loan amount within the reasonable period as because he was posted most remote places in India from where it was not possible to repayment of loan amount within a reasonable period. At Para-5, he also stated that when he came to Agartala on leave, contacted with the O.P. No.I for repayment of loan amount and also closed his loan amount by a cheque but on enquiry he came to know that the said amount was not adjusted by the O.P. and as a result the O.P. had repudiated the insurance policy without giving any prior information. At Para-6 he stated that he had paid Rs.16,900/- on 10/10/2018 and Rs.16,900.93/- on 30/10/2018, but unfortunately the O.P. No.1 had returned the amount of Rs.16,900.93/- without mentioning any cause. In cross examination the Complainant admitted that after sanctioning of the loan he was unable to repay the loan installments. He also admitted that after deducting the loan amount along with interest, the remaining amount of Rs.11,186.98 was returned to him on 06/04/2018.  

            On overall appreciation of evidence of both sides, we found that it is admitted fact that the Complainant failed to make loan installment in time and as per terms and conditions of the loan application the Policy had turned into Auto Surrender Mode and the O.P. refunded the surrender value amounting to Rs.11,186.98/- directly to the Complainant's account. In this regard there is no dispute.  

      In the case of Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 286, it was observed as under:-

       “The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely”. 

      Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  v. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank AIR 2000 SC 10, it was observed as under:-    

           “The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing it it”. 

          In the Exhibited documents(Exhibit-A series) i.e. in the terms and conditions of the application for loan form the serial No.8 & 9 it is mentioned that in the event of failure to repay the Principal Loan Amount together with interest on demand, the Policy shall be held to be forfeited by the Company without prior notice and the Company shall be entitled to apply the Surrender Value in respect of the Policy for repayment of the Principal Loan Amount, interest and expenses and the balance, if any, of the surrender value shall be accounted to the Policyholder. If at any point in time the loan and interest thereon exceed the Surrender Value/Cash Value, then whether or not the loan is recalled, the Policy shall lapse. 

              From the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the Complainant's case. Hence, the complaint is rejected as devoid of merit and no costs.                          

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties  free of cost. 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA