New Complaint No.200 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 25.10.2023.
Old Complaint No: 149 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2018.
Date of order:11.12.2023.
Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Satnam Singh, resident of Village Bahadur Hussain kalan Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
…...........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Central Processing Centre, 2nd floor, Kapas Bhawan, Plot No.3-A Sector - 10 CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai – 400023.
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Batala Branch (at Qadian Chungi, Batala) through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint/Petition u/s 12 of the Consumers redressal and protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Shani Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Inderjit Vaid, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is holder of Sudarshan Policy, bearing policy No. 06022536005 risk date 22 Aug 2006, term 20 years, sum assured of Rs.40,000/- IA name Mr. Simranjit Singh of the opposite parties and the complainant had paid some installments of premium (six monthly) i.e. Rs.2165/- on 23.04.2006, Rs.2033/- on 22.08.2007, Rs.2033/- on 22.08.2008, Rs.2030/- on 12.08.2009, Rs.2035/- on 30.08.2010, Rs.2050/- on 24.09.2011, Rs.2050/- on 01.10.2012, Rs.2030/- on 27.08.2013 and some other installments, and receipts of same are in custody instead of one which is missing. It is pleaded that the Batala Office of the opposite parties is not functioning since long and there is no office bearer in Batala due to which the complainant failed to make payment of the remaining premium, and the complainant tried to trace or any shifting place in Batala but all in vain, the opposite parties have not intimated to the complainant about exact location of the branch of the opposite parties and address. It is pleaded that the due to which the complainant was/is still harassing and suffering mental agony, harassment and financial loss and loss in the said policy. It is further pleaded that the complainant is legally entitled for the amount paid to the opposite parties as well as policy amount with interest and also for the compensation and damages for his sufferings without any fault, due to fault of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is pleaded that the there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties for payment of installments premium paid with compensation of similar amount and damages to the complainant with interest at Bank rate and any other relief to which the Hon’ble Commission deems fit may also be granted, in the interest of justice and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the address of the OP No. 1 is at Navi Mumbai and OP No. 2 is at Batala while the complaint is filed at Grasper and hence, the Hon'ble Commission may kindly dismiss the complaint against the OP’s No. 1 and 2 for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is pleaded that the disputed policy No. 06022536005 was issued to the complainant on 22nd August 2006, having annual mode for payment of premium. The crux of the complaint is regarding the lapse of the policy due to non-payment of renewal premium for a reason being closure of answering OP's Batala Branch. It is further pleaded that it is the responsibility of the policy holder, to keep her policy in force by paying the premium on the due dates. It is pleaded that the said policy has lapsed on 22.08.2009. Assuming, but not admitting, if at all any cause of action has arisen, it should be from the date when the insurance cover was granted, i.e. August 2009. It is pleaded that the complaint is filed after a gap of more than 8 years and hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that the date on which the basic cause of action has arisen cannot be extended by subsequent correspondence. It is further pleaded that the complaint is therefore malafide, perverse and coercive against the answering opposite parties and the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complaint does not come within the ambit of Section 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further pleaded that as per the records of the answering OP's, a proposal form bearing No. 06740257 dated 07.08.2006 was received from the complainant and on the basis of the said proposal form received a policy bearing No. 06022536005 which was issued with date of commencement as 22.08.2006 with yearly premium of Rs.2,033/- for a basic sum assured of Rs.40,000/- and accidental death benefit of Rs.40000/- for a term of 20 years. It is further pleaded that the policy was issued as per the details furnished in the proposal form. The renewal premium is payable on 22nd August every year. The renewal premium due on 22.08.2007 was not paid in time and the policy lapsed with effect from 22.08.2007. It is pleaded that the the complainant had revived the policy in April 2009 by submitting good health declaration and paying the premiums due till then. It is further pleaded that the OP's have not received the premiums since the due date 22.08.2009 and the policy is in lapse condition with effect from 22.08.2009. It is pleaded that the company had also sent Renewal premium intimation letter dated 08.07.2009, Lapse Intimation letter dated 22.09.2009 and Lapse - Revival Intimation letter dated 22.02.2010 but no further premiums were received under the said policy and the policy lapsed. It is further pleaded that it is duty of the policyholder to keep the policy in force by making payment of renewal premium on time. It is evident from the aforesaid premiums detail that the complainant had not paid the renewal premium due on 22.08.2007 and 22.08.2009 within grace period and hence the policy lapsed, which was revived by the complainant in April 2009. It is pleaded that the this clearly shows that the complainant is not regular in making payment of renewal premiums in time. It is further pleaded that in the instant case, the OP's have received 3 annual premiums and thus the policy has acquired the paid up value Rs.8600/- and it will be payable either on the date of maturity or death of the life assured whichever is earlier, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that there is no provision in the terms and conditions of the policy for refund of premium at this point and hence the OP’s is unable to accede to the request of the complainant for refund of premium. It is pleaded that the there is no deficiency in service on the part of the company / opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant has also availed the valuable risk cover for the period for which the premium was paid by her. Should there be any unfortunate insured event during the said period; the OP's would have paid the insured amount. It is pleaded that the the complainant cannot get the benefit of a valuable risk cover and also the refund of the entire premium. It is pleaded that the complaint is therefore illegal and unjust and is not maintainable.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits of Sukhwinder Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A and Gurjinder Kaur w/o Sarabjit Singh as Ex.CW-2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Dhanya K P, (Authorized Representative, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd, Navi Mumbai) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/6.
6. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
7. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased sudarshan policy from opposite parties and had paid number of installments. It is further argued that thereafter office of opposite parties at Batala stopped functioning and complainant could not deposit the remaining installments of premium as he was not aware about the branch of company after having been shifted and has argued that complainant is entitled to receive for refund of the premium paid and compensation.
8. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that opposite parties have not received premium since last due date i.e. 22.08.2009. It is further argued that company had sent renewal premium intimation on 08.07.2009 and revival intimation letter on 22.02.2010 and since no further premium was received under the said policy and as such policy has lapsed and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It is admitted fact that complainant is holder of sudarshan policy bearing No.06022536005 with commencement of risk w.e.f. 22.08.2006 for a term of 20 years with sum assured of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant has claimed refund of amount of premium deposited. However, perusal of record shows that after 22.08.2009 complainant had not deposited any premium with opposite parties and the policy has already lapsed in the year 2009. Perusal of receipt Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 shows that last receipt Ex.C9 is of 27.08.2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2018 after lapse of more than five years. As such without going into merit of the case the present complaint is dismissed being time barred as period for filing of complaint before this Commission is two years.
11. Accordingly, present complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Dec. 11, 2023 Member
*YP*
