Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/38

Ashok Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lalit Maini

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C.   No. :             38 of 2018

Date of Institution:   14.03.2018

Date of Decision :      4.06.2019

 

Ashok Kumar Gupta aged about 58 years, son of Banarsi Dass resident of  Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

 

                                                                          .........Complainant

Versus

1. Max New York Life Insurance Company ltd, 11^th Floor, D L F Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City, Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana), through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. Max New York Life Insurance Company ltd, Faridkot through its Incharge/ Branch Manager.
3. Axis Bank Ltd, Circular Road, Near Bus stand, Faridkot through its Branch Manager.

                                                                       .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Lalit Maini, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Rahul Chaudhary, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

              Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

 

ORDER   

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                            

cc no.- 38 of 2018

 

                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.1,20,250/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having saving account with OP-3 and it has ties with OP-1 and OP-2 Insurance Company and on assurance of OP-1 and OP-2 that they would give full benefits plus 10% additional bonus on   sum assured. Being allured by Ops, he purchased the policy in question from Op-1 and Op-2 and as per policy he had to pay premium of Rs.60,000/-annually for six years and then he would have been entitled to get full benefits plus 10% additional bonus. Minimum lock in period was for two years and if he could pay premium of two years, then after four years from the date of issuance of policy, he would be entitled for deposited amount with interest. He deposited Rs.60,000/-through OP-3 to Insurance Company vide cheque dated 13.09.2011 and officials of OPs took signatures of complainant on various printed forms and assured to provide the policy within short interval, but did not give him any policy document. After about two months, OPs gave him only insurance policy number and Op-3 deducted Rs.60,250/-on account of second premium on 31.12.2012. complainant was not satisfied with the assurance of Ops and he discontinued the payment to OPs and requested to release the amount already deposited by him. In year 2017, he made

cc no.- 38 of 2018

requests to Ops to release the amount deposited by him with them, but they kept putting him off for several months and then, final refused to make any payment and asserted that premium amount deposited by complainant has been forfeited by Insurance Company. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do anything needful and flatly refused to pay the amount deposited by him with them. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                               The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 and OP-2 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant purchased the policy in question with his own free consent and submitted his duly signed proposal form after fully understanding the terms and conditions of policy, which are set by IRDA. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false and incorrect and no cause of action arises against them and even complainant is not the consumer

cc no.- 38 of 2018

of answering Ops. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant has filed the present complaint in violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question. He has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from them. Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint filed by him is a misuse of process of law. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 5                                            Ld Counsel for OP-3 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is averred that complainant has himself voluntarily opted for the policy in question which is to mature after 20 years and thus, as per terms and conditions of policy in question, he cannot claim the insurance amount before period of maturity. It is denied that they ever made any commitment regarding payment of insurance amount before the maturity time. Complainant has no cause of action to file complaint against them as he is not their consumer. It is further averred that answering OP never made any misrepresentation regarding policy purchased by him. they have not received any amount from complainant and have no role in making disbursement of any kind of amount to him. claim sought by complainant from them is liable to be paid by Insurance Company and

cc no.- 38 of 2018

all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous. Moreover, claim filed by complainant is payable only by the Insurance Company and they have no role in making payment of insurance claim of complainant. All the other allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

6                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed their evidence.

7                                                       In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Aanchal Yadav as Ex OP-1,2 /1 and document Ex OP-1,2/2 and closed the same. Counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashish Gupta Ex OP-3/1 and then, closed the same.

8                                                          We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                                       From the careful perusal of evidence placed on record and from the pleadings of the parties, it is observed that  case of complainant that he holds an  account with OP-3, who has ties with Insurance Company/ OP-1 and 2. As per complainant, he purchased policy in question and paid Rs.60,000/- as premium. As

cc no.- 38 of 2018

per policy he had to pay premium of Rs.60,000/-annually for six years and then he would be entitled to get full benefits plus 10% additional bonus. Minimum lock in period was for two years and if he could pay premium of two years, then after four years from the date of issuance of policy, he would be entitled for deposited amount with interest. He deposited Rs.60,000/-vide cheque dated 13.09.2011 and OP-3 deducted Rs.60,250/- for second premium on 31.12.2012. Ops did not provide copy of insurance policy or any other policy related document to him. complainant was not satisfied with assurances given by Ops and requested to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest, but despite repeated requests, Ops have not made payment of Rs.1,20,250/-already deposited by him with them as premiums. All this amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In reply to controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs No. 1 and 2 stressed mainly on the point that refund sought by complainant is not payable as complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Counsel for OP-1 and 2 brought before the Forum that complainant has himself accepted the policy after fully understanding the terms and conditions which are set by IRDA. Ops fully described all the terms and conditions of policy to complainant and after carefully going through the same, complainant purchased the said policy and now, he cannot turn back and has to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy in question. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on

cc no.- 38 of 2018

their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. As per OP-3, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that complainant has himself voluntarily opted for the policy in question which is to mature after 20 years and thus, as per terms and conditions of policy in question, he cannot claim the insurance amount before period of maturity. No commitment was made by them regarding payment of insurance amount before the maturity time. Complainant has no cause of action to file complaint as they have not received any amount from complainant and they have no role in making disbursement of any kind of amount to him. Claim sought by complainant from them is liable to be paid by Insurance Company and they have no role to play in issuance of policy and in making payment of amount sought by him. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                  From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record and pleading made by parties in above discussion, it is observed that there is no dispute regarding insurance of complainant with OPs. It is observed that complainant has voluntarily with his own free will purchased the said policy from OPs after considering all the pros and cons in respect of terms and conditions of policy. All the OPs have brought before the Forum that complainant was fully aware that deposited amount would not be available till the date of maturity, but he has himself violated the terms and conditions and insisted for refund of amount deposited by way of two premiums.

cc no.- 38 of 2018

complainant himself opted for policy which is to continue for twenty years and now he has no right to seek any refund before the date of maturity.

11                                            From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. And therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 4.06.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                              Member                          President