Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 160.
Instituted on : 14.03.2011.
Decided on : 19.08.2016.
Jagdish son of Sh. Shri Chand resident of Attail Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Max New York Life Insurance Corporation Centre-90-A Udyog Vihar, Sector 18 Gurgaon through C.E.O. Analjeet Singh.
- Bhuvnesh Tyagi-code no.213324, Agent company(respondent no.1).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Hooda, Advocate for the complainants
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.1
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that Rashni d/o Jagdish claimant had obtained a life insurance policy bearing no.750279499/752677856 on 14.07.2009 from the opposite party no.1 through its agent opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.5 lacs for the period of 10 years. It is averred that the all the instalments were paid through opposite party No.2 and opposite party no.2 assured Rashmi that all the three monthly installments have been deposited with the opposite party no.1. It is averred that Rashmi died on 07.12.2009 and the complainant being the nominee and legal heir of deceased Rashmi is entitled to receive the insured amount from the opposite party no.1. it is averred that complainant put up his claim with the opposite party No.1 but the same was refused by the opposite party on the ground that only two instalments have been paid while payment of at least three installment is allegedly mandatory as per pleading of opposite party no.1. It is averred that the life assured had paid the premium through the agent of opposite party no.1 and the claimant cannot be held liable for any default of opposite party no.2. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to make payment of insured amount but to no effect. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.500000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is admitted to the extent that opposite party received only 2 premiums for policy bearing no.750279499. It is averred that the said policy was due for renewal premium for the term 24.09.2009 and policy holder failed to pay the renewal premium for the 24.09.2009. Therefore said policy got lapsed w.e.f. 24.09.2009 after the lapse of grace period and same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 27.09.2009 and 29.10.2009. It is averred that one initial premium and 5 renewal premium of Rs.4166/- each were required in order to continue the policy. Since the opposite party received only two premiums therefore policy got lapsed due to non payment of premium and the same was intimated to the complainant. It is averred that an amount of Rs.6055.15/- was also refunded via cheque no.069646 dated 20.01.2011 alongwith the repudiation letter dated 21.01.2011. It is averred that the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. It is further submitted that the claim of another policy bearing no.752677856 has already been paid by the opposite party no.1. It is therefore prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs. However opposite party no.2 did not appear and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.06.2011 of this Forum.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that Roshni had taken policies bearing no. 750279499 and 752677856 from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that Ms. Roshni had died on 07.12.2009 and after her death complainant filed the claim under the alleged policies. But the opposite party has only paid the claim amount of policy no.752677856 and has not settled the claim of policy no. 750279499 on the ground that the life assured had paid only two premiums of alleged policy and on the date of death of life assured the policy was in lapsed condition and an amount of Rs.6055.11/- was refunded via cheque no.069646 dated 20.01.2011 to the complainant. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in IV(2014)CPJ 642 (NC) titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Policy lapsed due to failure in making payment of premium-Respondent no.1 entitled to get surrender value of policy”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that at the time of death of life assured the policy bearing no. 750279499 was in lapsed condition and the fund value of Rs.6055/- has already been paid to the complainant through cheque no.069646 dated 20.01.2011. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
