DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/140.

Date of Institution   : 21.02.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 20.07.2022.

Gurbax Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh resident of H.No. 5168, Gobind Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.   

                …Complainant Versus

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Eminent Mall, Mall Road, Amritsar through its principle officer.   

                 …Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

Present: Sh. Saurabh Sharma Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Amit Bhatia Adv counsel for opposite party. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Reliance Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as opposite party).

2. Brief facts of the case are that one agent of the opposite party namely Ajay Soni came to complainant having mobile No. 95694-04876, and asked him to get the life insurance policy of opposite party and told the benefits of the policy, but the complainant refused to obtain any policy. But in spite of refusal of complainant said agent allured the complainant that he will get medical card of Rs. 1 lac and also accidental policy of Rs. 3 lacs but complainant did not agree. However, on the next day the agent again approached the complainant allured him to obtain the said policy by showing so many benefits. As such, under the allurement he made a life policy of complainant and received a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- as one time premium. It is further alleged that the complainant received policy from the opposite party and was surprised to see that it was for a period of 10 years with premium of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Later on the complainant received a phone call from one Mukesh Chander having mobile No. 99014-49306 and 95697-05306 introducing himself to be the Assistant Director of opposite party and told to deposit the next premium of Rs. 15,000/- of the said policy to which the complainant showed inability by stating that he is not interested to continue with the policy and the said Mukesh Chander told the complainant that if he does not want to continue with this policy, he should pay Rs. 30,000/- for two premium installments and assured to get back the entire amount. It is further alleged that the complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith a letter to said Mukesh Chander and surprisingly the complainant received another policy of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant on the assurance and misrepresentation of said agent again the complainant paid Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- respectively but they did not issue any receipt regarding the receipt of payment of the above said amount. However, after few days the complainant got a call from said Mukesh that they have issued the policies over that amount, but till today neither complainant got the policies nor any receipt regarding the amount paid by him. It is further alleged that since the complainant does not want to continue with the said policies and he is unable to pay further premiums, as such he is entitled for the refund of total amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- alongwith interest/bonus accrued on it. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 21.9.2015 through his counsel but to no effect. Due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay the insurance premium amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, not come with clean hands etc. It is further alleged that as and when the complainant made the payment of any policy premium the policy was issued to the complainant which was subject to certain terms and conditions. It is further alleged that as per averments of the complaint all the payments has been made in the year 2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2018 after the lapse of more than five years, as such the present complaint is time barred. On merits, the opposite party denied the case of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.   

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence the policy documents having No. D-1224309 (1-14 pages) Ex.O.P1 and another policy document (1-14 pages) Ex.O.P2 and closed the evidence.  

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that one agent of the opposite party namely Ajay Soni approached the complainant and asked him to get the life insurance policy of opposite party and told the benefits of the policy and allured the complainant that he will get medical card of Rs. 1 lac and also accidental policy of Rs. 3 lacs and the above said agent made a life insurance policy of complainant and received a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- as one time premium. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that the complainant received policy from the opposite party and was surprised to see that it was for a period of 10 years with premium of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and later on the complainant received a phone call from one Mukesh Chander who told the complainant to deposit the next premium of Rs. 15,000/- of the said policy to which the complainant showed inability by stating that he is not interested to continue with the policy. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the said Mukesh Chander told the complainant that if he does not want to continue with this policy, he should pay Rs. 30,000/- for two premium installments and assured to get back the entire amount. It is further argued that the complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith a letter to said Mukesh Chander and surprisingly the complainant received another policy of Rs. 30,000/- and the complainant on the assurance and misrepresentation of said agent paid Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- respectively but they did not issue any receipt regarding the receipt of payment of the above said amount. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that after few days the complainant got a call from said Mukesh that they have issued the policies over that amount, but till today neither complainant got the policies nor any receipt regarding the amount paid by him. 

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that as per averments of the complaint all the payments have been made in the year 2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2018 after the lapse of more than five years, as such the present complaint is time barred. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party that the policy issued to the complainant was subject to certain terms and conditions and as per the terms of the policy, no claim is made out. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that under the IRDA Regulations 2002, the policyholder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of the receipt of the policy bond (Free Look Period). 

9. Perusal of the Ex.C-5 shows that the premium paying term is  5 years with annual premium of Rs. 29,993, policy term is 15 years, date of last premium payment 28.12.2016 and the date of maturity is 28.12.2027. Further perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that the total installment premium Rs. 15,000.93, frequency of payment yearly, term of basic benefit 10 years, date of last premium is 17.1.2020 and the date of expiry is 17.1.2021. But the complainant has failed to prove that after paying the premiums of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- for the above said policies, he regularly paying the premiums in respect of the above said policies. Therefore, the above said policies 'lapsed'. It is proved on the file that the complainant himself signed the proposal/application forms i.e. Ex.O.P1 & Ex.O.P2 and accept the conditions of policy.  

10. The opposite party relied upon citation of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Tata AIG Versus Gulzari Singh decided on 26.2.2010 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that they are estopped from raising the ignorance or misrepresentation at all. It is also settled law by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) Raj-514 (SC) that a person signing the document is presumed to be signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. 

11. Further, from the perusal of the file it is also established that the present complaint has been filed by the complainants in the year 2018 but the complainant has deposited the above said alleged amount with the opposite party in the year 2013 which is proved from the Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 placed on record by the complainant and on 21.9.2015 the complainant served a legal notice to the opposite party but no postal receipt has been placed on record by the complainant. So, it is proved that there was no continuous cause of action. The cause of action arose in the year 2013 and the complaint was filed on 21.2.2018 after a gap of 5 years. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the present complaint is barred by the period of limitation. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 89 of 2014 decided on 1.5.2014 in case titled Niloba Ghanshyam Naik & Anr. Vs Lodha Pranik Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others in which the Hon'ble National Commission held that the complaint should be filed within two years from the cause of action and it is well settled that the correspondence, representations and legal notice do not extend the time of limitation. 

12. In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and National Consumer Commission, the present complaint has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       20th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member