BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 205 of 2018
Date of Institution : 02.08.2018
Date of Decision : 29.04.2019
Amrik Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Omkar Singh resident of House No.154, village Patli Dabar, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Balaji Towers, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Manager.
- M/s Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited Corporate and Registered Office: 14th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director.
- Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Meerpur Colony, Air Force Station, Near Railway Crossing, Behind Gurudawara, Sirsa Agent for policy No.C-677140319 in the name of the complainant (M-99914-01984 and 90506-01004).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ………MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K.Singla, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a policy TATA AIA Life Mahalife Gold bearing No.677140319 from Op on 08.03.2013 with total face value of Rs.4,80,000/- for 15 years with date of maturity 08.09.2017. The premium of the policy was fixed as Rs.22884/- half year and Smt.Rajinder Kumar was appointed as nominee in the said policy. The complainant had deposited six installments and as per policy terms and conditions, the complainant has a right to surrender the policy after paying premium for three years. The complainant moved an application to the Ops and requested for surrendering the policy but the Ops have not decided the said application and the same is lying pending with them. The complainant is ready to produce entire documents and record to the Ops but they are postponing the matter on one ground or the other and they have refused to pay anything to the complainant under surrender policy. The act and conduct of the Ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op Nos.1 & 2 in their joint reply have submitted that the complaint is premature as the complainant has never approached to the OPs to get his insurance policy surrendered; that the complaint is barred by law of limitation as the subject cited policy stands issued on 08.03.2013 and policy bonds were served to the complainant within a reasonable time but the complainant has never approached for cancellation of the policy under free look period. The complainant has already enjoyed the risk cover during such period and now the complainant after a long gap of 3 years from the date of making last installment premium has filed the present complaint without disclosing the complete facts, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service on the part of replying Ops. As per terms and conditions of the policy contract, the complainant had to strictly adhere to the premium paying schedule for a period continue period of 15 years but the complainant has not adhered the policy terms and conditions since the date of commencement of the policy. It has been further submitted that the present policy stand lapsed and as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract in that eventuality of non-making payment of the premium amount by the policy holder, then there is silent feature of APL under the policy and accordingly Automatic Premium loan has been applied from the available funds of the policy during the year 2016-17 to make the policy alive but the complainant even after 2016-17 has not make payment of the installments premium amount. In case the complainant wants to surrender benefit, then the replying Ops are having no objection to release the same to the complainant on his completing requisite formalities. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that as per the guidelines of the IRDA, if any customer does not want to continue his policy and wants to surrender the same, in that case, he will not be entitled to get whole of the amount deposited by him rather he will only be entitled to the amount after deduction of some of the amount as per terms and conditions of the policy. The six installments were not deposited timely by the complainant and the complainant has never approached the replying Op for surrendering of the policy nor he has got an such legal right and authority. The complainant has not suffered any loss on account of any act on the part of the replying Op rather the answering OP is suffering and facing hardship at the hands of the complainant due to his falsely involving in the present case. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant, in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and also tendered documents thanks letter Ex.C1, proposal form Ex.C2, first premium receipt Ex.C3, installments details Ex.C4, and aadhar card Ex.C5. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 have furnished documents application form Ex.R1, policy information page Ex.R2, lapse notice Ex.R3, reinstatement letter Ex.R4,lapse notice Ex.R5, reinstatement letter Ex.R6,lapse notice Ex.R7, reinstatement letter Ex.R8,lapse notice Ex.R9, reinstatement letter Ex.R10,lapse notice Ex.R11, reinstatement letter Ex.R11, lapse notice Ex.R12, non forfeiture benefit notice Ex.R13 & Ex.R14, terms and conditions Ex.R15, lumpsum benefit Ex.R16, long scale (Addl) Rider Ex.R17 and policy statement Ex.R18. Learned counsel for the Op No.3 did not lead any evidence and vide separate statement made on 19.03.2019 requested to read the reply, filed on behalf of OP No.3, as his evidence.
Thereafter, during the pendency of the complaint Op No.3 remained absent from this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.04.2019.
7. It is undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a policy from Ops with face value of Rs.4,80,000/- for a period of 15 years and the date of maturity was 08.09.2017. It is further admitted fact that the complainant had deposited six installments with the Ops. The detail is as under:
Sr.No. Dated Amount
1. 06.03.2013 22,884/-
2. 31.10.2013 23,240/-
3. 23.05.2014 23,100/-
4. 27.10.2014 22,920/-
5. 03.06.2015 23,240/-
6. 27.11.2015 23,160/-
Total amount : 1,38,544/-
Thereafter, the complainant did not pay any amount of premium and did not continue with the policy.
8. As per the contention of the Ops, the complainant did not continue with the policy nor he surrendered the policy in order to get surrendered value of the policy. Until and unless, the policy is not surrendered by the complainant, the Ops are not in a position to pay the surrender value of the policy, as per terms and conditions of the policy. In para No.5 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that he wants to surrender his above said policy for which he had moved an application to Ops to surrender his policy as per policy instructions but all in vain and the application is still not been decided by the Ops. The complainant is ready to produce entire documents and records to the Ops and ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by company.
9. Since the complainant has submitted application for surrendering of the policy alongwith the requisite documents, so, it was the legal obligation of the OP to settle and pay the surrender value of the policy of the complainant, which has not been paid by the Ops, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops No.1 & 2.
10. Keeping in view the above discussion, we hereby allow the preset complaint and direct the Ops No.1 & 2 to settle and pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order as per terms and conditions of the policy. The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay interest @ 7 % per annum, in case, the settled amount is not paid by the Ops No.1 & 2 after the settlement of the claim. The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The Ops No.1 & 2 are at liberty to get any requisite document from the complainant by serving 7 days prior notice to the complainant. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
