DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Uma Rani w/o Late Sh.Jagjit Singh, r/o H.No.289, Block-III, Shiv Shakti Colony, Nalagarh Road, Pinjore, Distt. Panchkula Haryana.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Max New York Life Insurance Company ltd., SCO 36,37,38, IInd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ashok Balian, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP.     

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. Briefly stated, in the month of April 2007, a representative/agent of OP namely Mr.Rajesh Jain approached the complainant and assured her to take life Insurance Policies. On the good faith of agent of OP, the complainant took three policies No.436294425 dated 9.4.2007 for Rs.20000/- as annual premium, Policy No.439052143 dated 30.4.2007 for Rs.20000/- as annual premium and Policy No.320989932 dated 30.4.2007 for Rs.5000/- as annual premium. The complainant paid one premium of Rs.24000/- against policy No.436294425, two premium of Rs.40000/- against policy no.439052143 and paid three premium of Rs.15000/- against policy No.320989932. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.79,000/- to the OP.

    It is alleged that the complainant is in dire need of money and approached agent Mr.Rajesh Jain as well as to the OP Company to get her money back alongwith interest. The OP company returned Rs.7825/- only against Policy No.320989932 and refused to return balance Rs.71,175/- alongwith interest. The complainant made a complaint vide Regd. Letter No.4181, dated 22.2.2011 to the OP company, but he could not received a single penny, rather OP insisted the complainant to deposit more money. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       The OP in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the complainant first time called the helpline of the OP on 13.5.2009 to know the status of her three policies. Subsequently, the complainant again called on 14.5.2009 to request the company for reinstatement of the policies which had lapsed. Thereafter, the complainant kept quiet for almost 10 months and called the helpline of the Company on 19.2.2010 and again on 8.7.2010. Thereafter, the complainant kept quiet for another 10 months and sent letter to the company, received on 7.3.2011, with a request to refund all the paid premiums. It is further pleaded that in response to the letter written by complainant, the OP company wrote letters dated 8.3.2011 and 10.3.2011 giving information as to how to surrender the insurance policies for policy bearing Nos.436294425 and 439052143 as 3 ATP was not paid, therefore, the policy could not be surrendered. The policy surrender is permissible only after successful completion of 3 policy years. The payment of three annual premiums for the policy baring No.320989932 was surrendered and the amount of Rs.7825.46 was dispatched to the complainant. It is further pleaded that as per the request of the complainant, for surrender of the insurance policies, the surrender value was dispatched to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No other amount is payable beyond the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. While denying the unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.       It is the admitted case of the Complainant that she had purchased three insurance polices i.e. Policy No.436294425 dated 9.4.2007 for Rs.20000/- annual premium, Policy No.439052143 dated 30.4.2007 for Rs.20000/- annual premium and Policy No.320989932 dated 30.4.2007 vide Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-3.  It is also a fact that she paid one premium of Rs.24000/- against Policy No. 436294425, two premiums of Rs.40000/- against Policy No. 439052143 and paid three premiums of Rs.15000/- against policy No.320989932. Thus, she had paid a total amount of Rs.79,000/- to the OP Insurance Company.

6.       The sole grouse of the Complainant is that when she was in dire need of money, she approached the representative of OP Mr.Rajesh Jain to get her money back along with interest, as she did not want to continue with the polices in question. The request of the Complainant was forwarded to the OP. In response thereto, OP returned Rs.7,825/- only as the surrender value against Policy No. 320989932 and refused to return balance Rs.71,175/-, along with interest.

7.       On the other hand, the OP contended that the Complainant had taken the policies in question on different dates and she had been provided the terms & conditions of the said Policies. The Complainant was informed vide letters Annexure F1 & F2 as to how to surrender the insurance policies. Learned counsel for the OP argued that policy surrender is permissible only after successful completion of 3 policy years and payment of three annual premiums and not otherwise.

8.       Undisputedly, payment of three annual premiums for the Policy bearing No. 320989932 was made by the Complainant and accordingly, the surrender value, which came to the tune of Rs.7,825.46P was dispatched to the Complainant. Since the Complainant did not fulfill this condition with regard to other Insurance Policies i.e. bearing Nos. 436294425 and 439052143, the surrender value could not be given to her.

9.       It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP that in all these three policies, the Complainant was a signatory to the proposal form, as well as the terms & conditions attached to the same. Since the Complainant was signatory to the terms & conditions of the policies, we find sufficient merit in the contention of the OP that the Complainant is stopped from saying that she was not aware of the terms & conditions of the policies.

10.      Learned counsel for the Complainant contended that Mr. Rakesh Jain had allured the Complainant to take these policies. We do not find any force in this argument, as she failed to implead the said Mr. Rakesh Jain as a party to the lis. Had she impleaded the aforesaid Rakesh Jain as a party, he could be summoned by this Forum, to have his reply to her assertions. This being so, all the allegations leveled by the Complainant are mere bald assertions and does not carry any weight. Moreover, the proposal forms have been signed by the Complainant on her own free will, subsequent to which the policies were issued as per the information provided by her in the said proposal forms. The insurance policies in question are legal contract based on terms & conditions, therefore, it cannot be said that any benefit beyond the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was ever promised to the Complainant.

11.      Moreover, the Complainant, who was at liberty and under obligation to go through the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents, did not raise any complaints/ objections regarding the policy either within the free lock-in period of 15 days. Thus, the contract of insurance attained finality and the OPs have been continuing to provide coverage to the Complainant. After the expiry of the free lock-in period, the policy terms and conditions of the Policy permit surrender of the policy only after completion of 3 years; when surrender value is payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy. It is not the case of the Complainant that she did not receive the policy documents, containing the term and conditions of the policy and that she opted for the refund within the free lock-in period of 15 days, which option was duly conveyed to her, as stated above, but she utterly failed to exercise the said option.

12.      Judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Complainant has not been able to establish any case in her favour or prove any allegation of deficiency against the OP. As a matter of fact, it is the OP which has been able to completely assail and rebut the allegations made by the Complainant against it by producing all relevant documents on record. Therefore, we find that there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and it deserves dismissal. Hence, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Pronounced

02.12.2011

                                       Sd/-

[P.D. GOEL]

President

                                       Sd/-

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

Member

                                       Sd/-

[Madanjit Kaur Sahota]

Member

“Dutt”