Order by:
Ms.Aparana Kundi, Member
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that she purchased policy bearing No. 21585093 on 28.05.2015 from the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.6,19,800/- for a period of 10 years and the complainant deposited Rs.92,520/- i.e. Rs.30,927/- on 26.05.2015, Rs.31050/- on 10.12.2015 and Rs.30,543/- on 30.05.2016 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties refused to accept the amount of installment from the complainant. Lateron, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party at Ludhiana and offered to deposit Rs.1,22700/- on 31.08.2018 and Rs.1,83,400/- on 21.08.2019 but they also refused to accept the same without assigning any reason. In this way, the complainant is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.92,520/- alongwith interest. The complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties on so many occasions to make the paid up amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the sum of Rs.92,520/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing her mental tension or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
2. Opposite Parties-Insurance Company appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant is herself guilty for her own act and conduct for not re-instating the policy despite number of letters sent by the Opposite Parties. The complainant can exercise the option as per the clause 3.5 (Part-C) of the policy. There is no fault on the part of the ops as the policy has already been lapsed in May, 2018. As per the policy terms if all regular premiums have been paid for at least three full policy years (two policy years in case premium payment term is 5 years) and any subsequent regular premium is not duly paid in full after the expiry of the Grace Period. The premium paying term under the policy was of 10 years and as such, the complainant was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature and hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. On merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Arijit Vashu, Senior Manager Ex.Ops1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops1/2 to Ex.Ops1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties- Insurance Company.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had purchased policy bearing No. 21585093 on 28.05.2015 from the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.6,19,800/- for a period of 10 years and the complainant deposited Rs.92,520/- i.e. Rs.30,927/- on 26.05.2015, Rs.31050/- on 10.12.2015 and Rs.30,543/- on 30.05.2016 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties refused to accept the amount of installment from the complainant. Lateron, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party at Ludhiana and offered to deposit Rs.1,22700/- on 31.08.2018 and Rs.1,83,400/- on 21.08.2019 but they also refused to accept the same without assigning any reason. In this way, the complainant is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.92,520/- alongwith interest. The complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties on so many occasions to make the paid up amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that complainant is herself guilty for her own act and conduct for not re-instating the policy despite number of letters sent by the Opposite Parties. The complainant can exercise the option as per the clause 3.5 (Part-C) of the policy. There is no fault on the part of the ops as the policy has already been lapsed in May, 2018. As per the policy terms if all regular premiums have been paid for at least three full policy years (two policy years in case premium payment term is 5 years) and any subsequent regular premium is not duly paid in full after the expiry of the Grace Period. The premium paying term under the policy was of 10 years and as such, the complainant was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature and hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 434 of 2017 titled as Shriram Life Insruance Company Limnited Vs. K.Viraja decided on 15th January, 2020 has held that the Insurance contracts are governed by the Principle of ‘UBERRIMA FIDE” and the proposer applying for insurance is expected to correctly furnish all the material information regarding his health, family history, personal medical history, income etc. Policyholder failed to disclose his pre-proposal health ailment of hypertension. According, the State Commission Order was set aside and the complaint dismissed. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8701 of 1997 decided on 02.11.1999 titled as Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has held that a Bonafide decision in good faith and a bona fide dispute is not covered within the term of ‘deficiency in service and only inefficiency, lack of due c are, absence of bona fide, rashness, haste or omission like acts on the part of the agency rendering services under a contract may be held guilty of deficiency in rendering service. Further Section 45 of the Insurance Act permits an insurer to cancel a life insurance policy in case a material concealment is made even if it does not amount to fraud.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and replying upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi (supra), we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
