Order no. 3              

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused and considered the complaint application.

The complainant’s case is that under heavy persuasion of the agent of opposite parties,  on 18.11.2016, he had invested in ‘Reliance Fixed Savings Plan’ under application no.TA952679, being policy no.52800458 and client ID no.98891743.  The term of the policy was for 20 years and the premium paying term was 10 years. The yearly premium was Rs.31,998.52 (Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred ninety eight point fifty two) only. The complainant further states that every year on and from year 2016 the premium amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand) only is being deducted from the complainant’s bank account and till date a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand) only had been paid to the opposite parties by the complainant under the said plan. It is further stated by the complainant that it was promised to him the aforesaid plan of the opposite parties is a mediclaim plan along with savings return. After the complainant was handed over the policy document, he came to know that he was misinformed and the said plan is not a mediclaim policy. The complainant sent several letters to the opposite parties not to deduct any further amount from the complainant’s aforesaid bank account as the complainant do not wish to continue the investment plan any more and claimed the refund of the premium amount which he paid from 2016 to 2020 but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it. According to the complainant he was made to make such investment under false persuasion of the agent of the opposite parties. Therefore he is entitled to get refund of the premium he paid to the opposite parties till date inter alia on other reliefs. Hence this case.

From the averment made above in the complaint application it is crystal clear that the complainant on receiving the policy document in the year 2016 came to know that he was misinformed and the said plan was not a mediclaim policy. In spite of that he allowed the auto debit from his account for payment of the premium to the opposite parties till the year 2020.

Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the cause of action has arisen in the year 2016 and the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 01.09.2023. No sufficient cause has been made out by the complainant for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation.

The case is apparently barred by limitation under section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. That apart, there is no averment in the complaint application alleging deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the instant complaint case is not maintainable as barred by limitation and in law.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complainant case be and the same is dismissed as not maintainable in law.

     Dictated by me

      …....................

          President