Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/16/2017

Pritam Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gulshan Rana

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

Consumer Complaint No    :  16 of 07.04.2017 

Date of Decision              :   23.07.2018

Pritam Kaur (aged about 67 years) wd/o Manmohan Singh Banvet s/o Sewa Singh, resident of village and post office Langroya, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District S.B.S. Nagar.

                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Banga Road, Nawanshahr, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, DLF Square Building, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, through its Director.

3.       Axis Bank Limited, Branch Banga Road, Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.A.P.S RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Gulshan Rana, Advocate

For OP No.1        & 2             :         Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate

For OP No.3                            :         Sh.Ravinder Parmar, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER SH.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint filed by complainant Pritam Kaur, wherein it is alleged that the complainant’ husband purchased policy bearing no. 865993844 and receipt of first premium is attached with this complaint file. Second premium of the policy in question was deducted in year 2013 from the joint saving account bearing no. 66501010007177. The policy in dispute was issued to complainant’s husband without his consent. During the life time of complainant’s husband, he approached OPs various times to return his amount, but all in vain. Unfortunately,  on 10.04.2015 complainant’s husband received head injuries in an accident. He remained admitted in Ivy Hospital Nawanshahr upto 09.05.2015 and expired on 10.04.2016. After death of complainant’s husband, she had approached to OPs for policy payment, but they refused to do so. During the life time of the complainant’ husband, he had filed complaint, which was decided on 10.09.2015 on the ground that complaint is premature and lock in period has ended in the March 2017, hence same is decided. The complainant suffered a lot of financial loses and harassment due to act and conduct of OPs. . Therefore, the complainant has filed instant complaint with prayer that direction be given to OPs to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs along with interest @15% p.a from the date of issuance of the policy till its realization and  bonus if any. It was further prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief.
2. Upon notice, OP no.1&2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that all the contentions made by complainant denied by OPs. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions and norms set by IRDA and same were communicated to the complainant. Any deficiency in service was denied on their part. No cause of action has accrued to complainant to file the present complaint. The complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant approached this Forum with clean hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting the material facts. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that on 14.03.2012  OPs no.1 and 2 received a proposal form (policy no. 865993844) duly signed by LA/policy holder and sent to the complainant on 21.04.2012. On 16.03.2012, OPs received another proposal form (policy no. 865993836) duly signed by the LA/Policy Holder. On 17.04.2012, policy no. 865993836 was sent to the complainant. The life assured had called many times to enquire the status of the policy as well as for the ECS enquiry i.e. on 24.03.2012, 27.03.2012, 28.03.2012, 29.03.2012, 30.03.2012 and 10.04.2012. On 14.02.2014,  the life assured filed court case and same was withdrawn with liberty to file the fresh. On 27.03.2014 to 10.04.2014,  ECS bonus intimation sent to LA/complainant. It was averred that policy holder himself approached the OPs to purchase the above policies, after fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy plan.  The above said policies were issued to life assured on the basis of proposal form, which was signed by him and  he himself fully understand the terms and conditions and purchased the above said policies with his own sweet will. As per terms of the policy, the free look period of 15 days provided by the OPs, but life assured have no objection in that period. Life assured made two installments as premium, which clearly shows that he was well aware about the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had                                not suffered  any financial loss and harassment. The life assured called many times in the month of March 2012 to enquire about the status of the policy. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs no.1 and 2 and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP no.3 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by his act and conduct to file the present complaint and not maintainable and liable to dismissed. On merits, it was averred there is no fault on the part of OP no.3 and it was falsely implicated in this case. The policy in question was not issued by OP no.3 OP no.3 had only prepared a bank draft at the instruction of complainant and nothing was done by Bank/OP no.3. It was further averred that complainant has his NRI account with late Manmohan Singh Banvet with OP no.3/Bank at Nawanshahr. The complainant himself issued two cheques worth Rs.99,000/- each after coming to India. The whole transaction was carried by complainant individually and within his own knowledge. OP no.3/Bank  is  duly bound  to issue bank draft, when directed by the customer, so there is no fault on its part. Rest of averments of the complainants were matter of record and denied by OP no.3 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence. As against it; OP no.1&2 tendered in evidence  affidavit of Dhiraj Malik Deputy Manager Legal of OPs as Ex.OP-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/14 and closed the evidence.  OP no.3 tendered in evidence copy of statement of account of Manmohan Singh Banvet is Ex.OP-3/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard counsel for the complainant and also scanned complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
6. Learned counsel for both the parties argued similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reproduce for want of repetition.  As per Ex.C-3, complainant is a nominee of his husband’s life insurance policy No.865993844.  In Ex.C-3 it is specifically mentioned that duration of coverage to age 100 and insured even maturity or death of Life Insured date of proposal is 14.03.2012 and died the life insured (husband of complainant) on 10.04.2016. Ex.C-4 is insurance premium receipt dated 18.04.2012 under policy plan whole life participating to age 100.  Ex.C-11 is copy of complaint filed by complainant’s husband during his life time so the contention of OP No.1&2 in his reply on merits in Para No.1 that life insured during his life never made any complaint or objection with regard to the policies in question is not believable moreover Op No.1&2 also admitted this factum that life insured himself made two installments as premium. We find that the complainant never raised any question regarding the said policy within that period. 
7. Therefore, as discussed above, the present complaint is disposed of with directions to complainant to deposit the remaining required installment of policy in question and thereafter receipts of premium amount, the OPs are directed to settle the claim of complainant within 45 days. 
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 23.07.2018                                                         

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                                   President