Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/318

Shakuntla devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Kumar Adv.

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 318 dated 05.07.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 08.08.2022.

 

Shakuntla Devi aged 49 years Wife of Late Sh. Ajay Kumar r/o.H. No.263, Bhai Himmat Singh Nagar (Block-B), Village Gill, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant 

•  

1. M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 14^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.        
2. M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: 1^st Mik Plaza, Plot NO.810/X/12, Near KM Public School, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Haryana through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Local Office: 1-F, First Floor, Dashmesh Complex, SCO-668, Pakhowal Road, Mall Enclave, Ludhiana.
4. Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Kartar Singh, Authorized Agent/Representative of M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Mik Plza, Plot No.810/X/12, Near KM Public School, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Haryaa.                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1 and OP3          :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Complaint against OP4 already dismissed vide                                            order dated 10.06.2022.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant was allured by OP4 to buy life insurance policy No.C682176640 titled as TATA AIG Life Insurance Maha Life Magic which had maturity amount of Rs.6,00,000/- approximately. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the husband of the complainant started depositing the premium of policy through OP4. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant namely Ajay Kumar died o 05.01.2018. After his death, the complainant gave intimation of death to OP3 and OP4. Thereafter, OP4 approached the complainant in April 2018 and asked her to provide some documents relating to the policy for getting the claim. OP4 took signatures of the complainant on various blank and typed papers under the impression that she would get the claim. Thereafter, OP3 approached and stated to the complainant that a sum of Rs.1,09,854/- had been paid in her account on 17.04.2018. She was further assured that the remaining claim amount of Rs.4,90,146/- would soon be disbursed in her account. However, the remaining amount was not deposited and the OPs kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs but despite that the needful was not done. Hence this complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,90,146/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and further that the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Complaint as against OP4 was dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2022  for non filing of the correct address.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. According to OP1 to OP3, the husband of the complainant had submitted a proposal/application dated 31.03.2015 for purchase of TATA AIG Life Insurance Mahalife Magic Plan for himself wherein the sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/-. The term of the policy was 18 years. The premium was payable for 9 years and the amount of the annual premium was Rs.29,739/-. The proposal was accepted and the policy No.C682176640 dated 31.03.2015 was issued. It is further pleaded that after paying the first premium, the DLA did not pay the further premiums. Accordingly, the premium payment notice dated 01.03.2016 was served upon him but despite that he failed to pay the premium amount. As a result, the policy lapsed. Intimation in this regard was given to DLA vide notice dated 30.04.2016. After the lapse of the policy, the DLA had approached the OPs and on payment of premium amount, the policy was revived vide letter dated 30.07.2016. Thereafter, the DLA again failed to pay subsequent premium which was due in March 2017. As a result, the policy of the DLA was converted into Reduced Paid-up policy as per terms and conditions of the policy and intimation in this regard was given to the DLA vide letter dated 15.05.2017. As the policy attained the status of Reduce Paid-up policy, the complainant is not entitled for the sum assured. As per the terms and conditions of the policy and in view of the reduce paid-up condition, an amount of Rs.1,09,854.34 had already been paid to the complainant vide claim settlement letter date 17.04.2018. The complainant is not entitled to anything more than that nor any promise of the claim of Rs.4,09,146/- has been made by the OPs to the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C19.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Harsimran Singh, Senior Manager (Legal) of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R10.

6.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant since 30.03.2022. We have, however, heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                In the written statement, it has been categorically pleaded by OP1 to OP3 that after paying the first premium for the first year , the life assured did not pay any further premium with the result that a notice dated 01.03.2016 was served upon him but even after the service of the notice, the life assured failed to pay the premium with the result that the policy stood lapsed and in this regard, intimation was given to the life assured vide letter dated 30.04.2016. However, thereafter, the life assured approached the OPs and get the policy revived vide letter dated 30.07.2016, copy of which is Ex OP8. It is further stated in the written statement that after the policy was revived vide letter ex. OP8, the life assured again  failed to pay the subsequent premium which was due in march 2017 with the result that the policy was converted into reduced paid-up policy as per terms and conditions of the policy vide letter Ex. OP9. It is clearly mentioned in the letter Ex. OP9 that the new face amount of the policy was reduced to Rs.61,805.69 The life assured Ajay Kumar died on 05.01.2018 as is evident from the death certificate Ex. C12. Since the premiums following due after 31.07.2017 were not paid, the status of the policy as per letter Ex. R9 was reduced paid-up with face value of Rs.61,805.69 and after the death of the life assured an amount of Rs.1,09,854/- has already been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. All these facts stated in the written statement have not been controverted by the complainant as no replication or rejoinder was filed nor any evidence has been led that the life assured had got the policy revived or had paid any premium which fell due subsequent to 31.07.2017. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to claim for a sum of Rs.4,90,146/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Shakuntla Devi Vs Tata AIG                                          CC/19/318

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   Complaint against OP4 already dismissed vide order dated                           10.06.2022.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 30.03.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OP1 to OP3 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.