Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/30/2014

Raj Kumar Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	30 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17.01.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	26.02.2015

 

 

 

 

Raj Kumar Gandhi son of Late Sh.Sat Pal Gandhi, resident of H.No.76, Bakshi Niwas, Dhangu Road, Pathankot (Punjab).

 

 

             Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman C/o Max House, 1, Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi 110020

 

2]  Yes Bank, through its Manager, Sector 9-C Branch, Chandigarh.

 

    Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Anil Mehra, Counsel for the complainant.

           Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Party-1

           Sh.Ammish Goel, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

1]      The complainant had opted for a life Partner Plus Plan, issued by the Opposite parties, by paying premium of Rs.30,000/- by way of cheque.  As per his allegation, no terms and conditions of the policy were supplied at the time of signing the proposal.  After a year, the complainant found that the policy was not worth continuing as it did not meet his requirement.  Therefore, he made a request to the Opposite Parties in writing for cancellation of the policy.  Thereafter, he visited the office of Opposite Parties a number of time, but no amount was returned by the OPs. He has thus filed the instant complaint praying for refund of premium amount of Rs.30,000/- besides payment of compensation and cost of litigation.

 

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3]       The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply at the outset has denied all the contents of the complaint.  It has stated that the complainant had submitted duly signed proposal form after fully understanding the terms & conditions of the policy, which was issued in strict adherence to the norms set by IRDA.  The proposal form was filled-up on 11.3.2008 (Ann.A-1); the premium was Rs.30,000/- annually and the policy was for 100 years with sum assured of Rs.20,50,581.21.  The policy was sent to the complainant and duly received by him.  The Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that the premium was payable by 11^th March of every year.  The answering Opposite Party initially received cancellation request for the policy on 7.5.2008 (Ann.A-3).  Thereafter, the customer care executive was able to satisfy the complainant after which letter dated 10.5.2008 was issued by the complainant informing that all his issues have been resolved (Ann.A-5). The premium notice for next premium was also issued to the complainant (Ann.A-6). However, no regular premium was paid despite reminder.  The policy lapsed intimation was also sent to the complainant vide letter dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure A-7). Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 only received letter dated 9.7.2013 from the complainant (Ann.A-8) requesting for cancellation of the policy and alleging that his complaints had not been responded too.  He was informed that the policy was now in a lapsed mode since 11.3.2009 due to discontinuation of payment of premium.  It was further informed that as the minimum three years premium was not paid against the policy, the policy revival period of three years from lapse date has already expired, therefore, the policy neither has any surrender value nor could it be revived.  Denying all other allegations in the complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]       The Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has stated that the complaint is barred by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.  While admitting his role as the agent in issuance of the policy to the complainant and relying on the clause of free look period available to the complainant, all the contentions of the complainant have been denied and Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

 

7]       The complainant had applied for a life insurance policy with the Opposite Party No.1 in March, 2008 after paying premium amount of Rs.30,000/-.  Accordingly, the policy (Ann.B) was issued to him along with letter dated 8^th May, 2008.  The policy was effective from 11^th March, 2008 onwards.  The complainant did not pay any further premium on this policy due to which the policy reached a lapsed mode. As per the allegations of the complainant, he had requested the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policy after a year of the policy.  At this time, the second premium of the policy had already become due, but was not paid.  The proposal form and the documents at Ann.A-1 to A-5 placed on record by the OPs bring out that the complainant was initially dissatisfied with the policy, but later on was satisfied and agreeable to the terms & conditions.  As per terms and conditions placed on record by the OPs, the complainant would be entitled to a surrender value only if three regular premium had been paid by him, but this is not the situation in this case.  It is also undisputed that the complainant had already enjoyed the life coverage against the premium paid by him for the relevant period.  Hence, we cannot direct the Opposite Parties to refund the premium paid.  They would have been liable to compensate the complainant in case of any eventuality in the relevant period.  The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is accordingly dismissed.

         The Opposite Party No.2 is only an agent, who has facilitated the issuance of the policy to the complainant, no relief is due from him.  Hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is also dismissed.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

26^th February, 2015                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                     MEMBER

Om      

                     

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.30 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 26th day of February, 2015

O R D E R            Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been dismissed.          After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Madhu Mutneja)
Member	President	Member