Delhi

New Delhi

CC/76/2017

Rattan Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

22 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

                           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                           (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                    ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

             Case No.C.C.76/2017                                            Dated:

              In the matter of:

Sh. Rattan Kumar Gupta,

R/o 147-A, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,

Delhi-110007.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

             The Regional Branch Manager,

             The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

             88, Janpath, Ground Floor,

              New Delhi-01.

Opposite Party.

                

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a senior citizen of India and was a policy holder bearing No.272900/48/2015/5860 of OP since last many years. It is alleged that the complainant regularly got renewed the said policy every year and paid renewal premium charges to the OP.  It is submitted that after attaining the age of 80 years, OP Co. refused to renew the policy in question.  It is further submitted that the complainant lodged his complaint against the said refusal of the OP to renew his said policy but no steps has been taken by the OP Co., hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  In its written statement, OP has pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(d) (1) of the CP Act 1986, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It has been further pleaded that he is not entitled to renew the policy in question after the age of 80 years as per terms and conditions of the policy and further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.     Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.  On the other hand, on behalf of OP, Sh. Bipin Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager has filed his evidence by way of Affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     It is argued by the complainant that non renewal of the mediclaim policy by the OP after attaining the age of 80 years is unjustified.  It is further argued that it is duty of the OP to inform him that the policy would not be renewed after attaining the age of 80 years, so that he may purchased the same from the other Insurance Co. who were selling the policy after the age of 80 years.    In support of his contention he has placed on record the document containing the details of the policy issued by the other Insurance Co. after attaining the age of 80 years. 

6.     It is argued on behalf of OP that   the policy issued to the complainant was Group Policy negotiated and issued for the account holders of Punjab National Bank with the age limit of 80 years under the policy. This condition was not only written in the prospectus but also on the proposal form  signed by the complainant at the time of the taking the policy.  It is further stated that the OP Co. vide its letter dated 21.3.2016 has offered to the complainant to shift to its other products available after the age of 80 years and also assured him that the continuity benefit wouldl be given to him. It is further stated that non renewal of the policy by the OP is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the terms and conditions of the policy in question and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.     We are in agreement with the  contention of the counsel for the OP, the perusal of the policy documents, terms and conditions, as well as the letters sent by the  OP to the complainant, shows that the OP has tried its level best to provide the services to the complainant.  It is not under the domain of the OP to renew the policy in question which could not be renewed, as the age limit for the renewal of the policy ceases as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The perusal of the letter dated 21.3.2016 shows that the OP has offered another policy product to the complainant with continuity benefit but the complainant has not availed the same.   Non renewal of the policy in question by the OP is not unjustified        and arbitrary and as such does not amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. 

8.     In view of the above, we are of the inclined to hold that complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in services against OP.  We finds no merits in the complaint, therefore, same is hereby dismissed.

 A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 22/11/2018. 

 

 

         (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                  PRESIDENT

 

                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER