BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.19 of 14.

                                                            Instituted on: 20.1.2014.

                                                            Date of order: 26.3.2015.

Ram Pyari wife of Shri Baljeet Singh, resident of House No.1710/1 Ward No.30, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

                                                                      …………Complainant.

                              Versus

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Jakhar Complex, in front of Roze Garden on the Jeevan Deep Hospital         , M.C.Colony, LOharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani through its Manager.                                        

 ……….Respondent.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

                    CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting:        Shri B.D.Yadav, President,

                    Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                    Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:       Shri Mohit Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Shri Jitender Tanwar, Adv. for respondent.

ORDER

         The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she had taken an insurance policy bearing No.18642221 on 9.3.2011 and had deposited the premium amount to the tune of Rs.49953/ with the respondent company. The complainant further alleged that she had also taken another policy bearing No.18769594 and had deposited the premium amount to the tune of Rs.49953/-. The complainant further alleged that the agent of the respondent company assured that bonus to the tune of Rs.3,25,622/- will be given within 24 hours but till date nothing has been paid. The complainant further alleged that she requested the respondent company to refund the deposited amount but it did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that she had also got served a legal notice through her counsel but of no use. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent company and as she had to file the present complaint.. 

2.              Respondents on appearance filed written statement contesting the claim of the complainant mainly on the ground that the policy in question was taken on 9.3.2011 and the present complaint has been filed in the year, 2014 i.e. after the lapse of two years from the alleged date of cause of action and thus the complaint is time barred. It is submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint as the same does not fall within the preview of the Hon’ble Forum. It is further submitted that the policy in question has been purchased by complainant through its brokers i.e. M/s Perfect Insurance Advisor and Gilpa Insurance Brokage Ltd. and insurance broker in the present policy is agent of the applicant and not answering respondent. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.              Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions. 

4.               We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5.              The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the policy was issued from Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Jind. Ld. Consel has also referred Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. vide which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the complaint can be entertained at the place where the policy has been taken. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is not tenable as Local Branch office of the respondent company has been arrayed as respondent and the correspondence was made through the Local Branch (Vide Annexure CO/1 to CO/4. Therefore, the facts of the referred case are different from the present case and the same is not applicable to the case in hand. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the complaint is time barred as the same has been filed after lapse of two years from the date of cause of action. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the respondent is also not tenable as the complainant has been making correspondence with the respondent. Husband of the complainant had also moved application that his wife has to undergo for heart surgery and sought the refund of amount within fifteen days. As the correspondence was going on between the parties, it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred and the cause of action is continuing. In view of these circumstances the complainant is entitled to refund the amount paid by her with interest. So, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondent is directed:-

1-     To refund the amount of premium/installments paid by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.

2-     To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

26.3.2011.                                           President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Balraj Singh)     (Anita Sheoran)                

Member             Member