Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/31/2014

Raj Kumar Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	31 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17.01.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	27.02.2015

 

 

 

 

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 Maker Platinum United Linked (Non-Participating) Plan, issued by the Opposite parties, by paying premium of Rs.1,50,000/- 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.1,50,000/- 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 06.09.2007 (Ann.A-1); the premium was Rs.1,00,000/- annually and the policy was valid upto 21.9.2032 for sum assured of Rs.24,03,270/-. The policy was sent to the complainant and duly received by him (Ann.A-2 (colly)).  The answering Opposite Party received cancellation request for the policy on 23.7.2008 and 19.8.2008 respectively (Ann.A-3 & A-5).  Thereafter, the complainant vide letters dated 6.8.2008 & 03.09.2008 respectively (Ann.A-4 & A-6) was informed that the policy cannot be cancelled beyond the free look period of 15 days and therefore, the amount could not be refunded. The complainant’s request for change of address and change in mode of premium payments made on 13.9.2008 were adhered to and intimation was duly sent to him (Annexures A-7 to A-9). The premium payment was now Rs.25,000/- quarterly.  A sum of Rs.50,000/- was subsequently paid by the complainant by this mode. The premium notice for next premium due on 21.3.2009 was also issued to the complainant (Annexure A-10). However, no premium was paid despite reminder, due to which the policy lapsed. Intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure A-11). It is stated that as three regular premiums were not paid, therefore, the policy neither has any surrender value nor premium amount could be paid. 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]       The complainant filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions of his complaint and controverting the assertions of the OPs as made in their reply.

 

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

8]       The complainant had obtained a life insurance policy from the Opposite Party No.1 in September, 2007 after paying initial premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the policy (Ann.C) was issued to him along with letter dated 22^nd Sept., 2007.  The policy was effective from 21^st Sept., 2007 onwards and the premium was to be paid annually.  Later the payment mode was changed to quarterly against which the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- more bringing the total premium paid to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant did not pay any further premium on this policy after that 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.  The request being beyond free look period was declined.  Also demand dated 24.2.2009 was raised for premium due on 31.3.2009.  This premium was not paid. Vide letters dated 15.11.2011 and 27.06.2012 (Ann.A-13 & A-14), the Opposite Party has correspondence with the complainant and told that the policy cannot be cancelled and the premium paid cannot be refunded as the free look period has elapsed.  This brings us to the conclusion that though the policy is in a lapsed mode it is still not cancelled and hence, some money definitely stands in the name of the complainant against investments made by the Opposite Party for the unit linked policy issued to the complainant.

         Annexure A-1 is the Copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form.  Column No.9 of Section B dealing with allocation premium shows that 100% of the amount paid by the complainant has been put into growth fund.

         Therefore, the surrender/Fund value of this 100% premium, after adjustment of annual dues, needs to be paid to the complainant and silence about this amount by the Opposite Party to our mind amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

9]       So, holding the Opposite Party No.1 liable to pay the surrender/Fund value to the complainant, as per terms & conditions of the policy, we allow this complaint and direct Opposite Party No.1 to pay the complainant as under:-

i)  The surrender/Fund value of the policy, as per terms & conditions of the policy.

ii) Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

iii) Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

         The order shall be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay the decreed amount along with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till its realization, besides the cost of litigation.

     

9]       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 dismissed.

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

Announced

27^th February, 2015                

            

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                     MEMBER

Om      

                    

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.31 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 27th day of February, 2015

O R D E R            Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2.          After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

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