BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.25/14.
Date of instt.: 29.01.2014.
Date of Decision: .2015.
Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chatarbhuj, R/o H.No.278, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Chotu Ram Chowk, Kaithal.
2. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director, 11th floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Present : Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he took a life maker premium unit link investment plan from the Ops. It is alleged that he paid the premium amount on 07.04.2009 and the Ops issued the policy No.734192149 in the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is alleged that in the month of November, 2012, the complainant went to surrender the policy to get the amount in the policy as he already paid the 3 ATPs as per the policy but the officials did not cooperate the complainant and called for another day. It is further alleged that despite after many visits, the Ops told the complainant that the policy was not surrendered and he had to pay the premiums till the maturity. It is further alleged the complainant again requested the Ops to pay the surrender value of the policy in August, 2013 but the Ops did not hear him. It is further alleged that the complainant also served a legal notice to the Ops on 25.11.2013 through his counsel but the Ops did not give any reply till date. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant had applied for insurance policy for the purpose of investment as-well-as insurance. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that he had received policy upon issuance of the same and he has also gone through the policy. It is submitted that in the policy schedule, it was specifically mentioned that the premium was to be paid for 30 years. Thus, there is no question of any kind of mis-representation that the premium had to be paid for lesser period. The complainant made payment of premium only for two years and then stopped making payment of premium and wanted to surrender the policy before its maturity. Moreover, it is submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the policy terms and conditions that the policy can be surrendered only after payment of three annual premiums. It is further submitted that it is not a case of complainant that he did not receive the policy documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 12.03.2015. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and documents Annexure Op1 to Op6 and closed evidence on 20.11.2014.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. .2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Rajbir Singh),
Member.
