Delhi

StateCommission

CC/893/2019

HARMINDER GREWAL & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

UTSAV VASUDEVA

19 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :19.11.2019

Date of Decision : 25.11.2019

COMPLAINT NO.893/2019

In the matter of:

 

1. Harminder Grewal,

Villa 103 The Laburnum,

North Gate, Sushank Lok-1,

Gurgaon-122001. Haryana.

 

2. Atamjot Kaur Grewal,

Villa 103 The Laburnum,

North Gate, Sushank Lok-1,

Gurgaon-122001. Haryana.………Complainants

 

Versus

           

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Ramky Selenium, Plot No.31 and 32,

Beside Andra Bank Training Centre,

Financial District, Gachibowli,

Hyderabad-500032. Telangana.

 

Also at:

Divisional Office:-

Tirupati DO,

10-3-206 M/4, IInd Floor,

Opposite Krishna Reddy Hospital,

Reddy and Reddy colony,

1.  

Andhra Pradesh.

 

Corporate Office:-

Shriram Life Insurance Company ltd.,

Pocket C, Rajender Nagar Par-I,

Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110060.……..Opposite party

 

 

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint is at the stage of admission. Complainants are mother and daughter. Complainant no.1 was dealing with OP. She was operating domestic gas agency in Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. She developed relationship of uberrima fides with the team of OP. Under said faith and trust, team of OP sold many policies approximately around 57 in number to the complainants. The complainants were sold said policies under the impression of investing in Shriram Finance Deposit Receipts. In some policies there were signature of complainant no.1 and she put  same as per instructions of complainant no.1. In most of other policies her signatures are forged by agents of  Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. It is duty of the insurer to verify with the proposer as to why policies are being made in the name of 35 years old  earning daughter . In such case, an insurance company is duty bound to obtain NOC from the insured which was never obtained. It is astounding that OP allowed 65 year old  complainant no.1 to pay premium on the policies of a 35 year old daughter. Cover of roughly Rs.300 lakhs was allowed by  the OP in the name of complainant no.2 without even having a medical screening.
2. Complainant no.2 demanded compilation of policies sold to complainant no.1, total money paid by complainant no.1, account statement of each policy, details of settlements, if any. Hence this complaint for directing OP to pay Rs.74,93,465/- towards cost of premium paid, to pay interest @24% p.a., to pay pendentelite interest @24% p.a., to pay Rs.50 lakhs and/ or any other amount which this Commission  may  deem fit in lieu of compensation / damages for the inconvenience, hardship, losses, mental harassment, costs and other miscellaneous expenses suffered by the complainant over the period of 11 years.
3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very out set I may mention that  complainant must have received documents of FDR, if she made the payment for investment in FD. One can be believed to be  deceived on one occasion or two occasions. But one can not be believed to have been deceived 57 times in the same manner.
4. Moreover the complainant must have paid annual premium, more than once during last 8 years. If she has made FD, there was no question of paying the premium.
5. The complainant with held the letter of repudiation. It was only during arguments on admission that in response to quarry raised by this Commission, the counsel for complainant filed copy of letter dated 16.11.19 repudiating the claim of the complainants. The same recites that insured attended the medicals and completed all the formalities for issue of life insurance policies after which the company issued the policy and all the policy  documents were delivered.
6. The aforesaid letter further recites that if insured was not satisfied that the policies terms and conditions, she should have noticed that policies had been missold to her, then she  had the option to free look cancel the policies and get the amount refunded. She  did not avail the free look cancellation  option which evidences that she was  satisfied with the life insurance policy issued to her.  At this juncture I may mention that this Commission took view that after allowing free look period to be  passed, no complaint is maintainable. In this regard reference can be made to Vol.I (2018) CPJ 2B CN (Del.) tilted as Surender Kumar Vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.
7. The letter further recites that for some of the policies the OP have received renewal premium which give conformity that complainant was aware of policies issued to her. This is what I have said above.
8. The letter also mentions that some of the policies were surrendered and the amount was refunded to the insured which was confirmed by the insured.
9. Apart from the above the complainant had been making investment since December, 2007. Complaint filed in 2019 is bitterally barred by limitation. The complaint has alleged in para-7 of the complaint that it was only in 2016 that they found the fraud.  Even if that is accepted still the complaint filed in 2019 is barred by limitation
10. The counsel for the complainant urged that complainant had been corresponding with the OP. But that does not extend limitation as per decision of NC in RP no.26/12 titled as Sebsastain  MD vs. M.J. Devdas decided on 13.07.12. In R.P. No.4190/2007 titled as DDA vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal majority judgement of NC vide order dated 03.07.13 held that the complaint was barred by limitation.
11. In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed in limine.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
13. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•