Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/32/2014

Naveen Gandhi W/o Sh Raj Kumar Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	32 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17.01.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	26.02.2015

 

 

 

 

Naveen Gandhi w/o Raj Kumar 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 Whole Life (Participating) Plan, issued by the Opposite parties, by paying premium of Rs.20,000/- 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 agent and Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policy.  Thereafter, he visited the office of Opposite Parties a number of times, but no amount was returned by the OPs. He has thus filed the instant complaint praying for refund of premium amount of Rs.20,000/- 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 30.11.2008 (Ann.A-1); the premium was Rs.20,000/- annually and the policy was for 100 years with sum assured of Rs.4,64,145/-.  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 30^th November of every year.  The answering Opposite Party has not received any request in writing for cancellation of policy, but has only received for change of address from the complainant and accordingly the address was changed (Ann.A-3 & A-4).  Thereafter, the complainant requested for duplicate policy, which was duly sent to the complainant. The premium notice for next premium was also issued to the complainant (Ann.A-5). However, no regular premium was paid despite reminder.  The policy lapsed intimation was also sent to the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure A-6).  On his request about the status of policy, the complainant was informed that the policy was now in a lapsed mode from 30.11.2009 due to discontinuation of payment of premium.  It was further informed that a maximum period of three years was available to revive the policy and as the present policy already stood lapsed for more than three years, the same could not be reinstated or revived (Ann.A-7). 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 November, 2008 after paying premium amount of Rs.20,000/-.  Accordingly, the policy (Ann.A) was issued to him along with letter dated 11^th Dec., 2008.  The policy was effective from 30.11.2008 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, but no such letter/document has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his averments.  Nor is there any request from the complainant for cancellation of the policy to the Opposite Parties. The complainant has only sought information about the status of his policy as also made a request for change of address. The change of address was duly made under intimation to him (Ann.A-4). He was also informed vide letter dated 30^th Dec., 2009 (Ann.A-6) that the policy had lapsed and terminated due to non-payment of regular premiums.  However, he was informed that he was entitled to reinstatement of policy after payment of relevant dues. The complainant did not make any further payment. We can see that as per terms and conditions placed on record by the OPs, the complainant would have been entitled to get his policy revived upto maximum period of three years and only then, he would become entitled to surrender value 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