Haryana

Karnal

CC/493/2020

Maya Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Hardyal Singh

28 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 493 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.06.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:28.11.2022

 

Maya Ram son of Shri Ram Kumar resident of VPO, Daboki Kalan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, age 32 years.

 

                                                                   …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager SCO 144, 2^nd floor, near OPS Vidya Mandir School, Karnal.

2.     The Regional Director SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 109, First Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

3.     Dheeraj son of Shri Mehar Singh, resident of village Dabkoli.

4.     Rahul, Agent, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik….Member   

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Hardyal Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri N.K. Zak, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

                    OPs no.3 and 4 given up.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has purchased a SBI Life-Smart Champ Insurance, vide policy no.1P698175310 through his agent Mr. Rahul Kumar. At that time one Dheeraj was also came with said Rahul. Complainant had paid Rs.9000/- as installment. The said policy has been received by complainant on 03.02.2017. At the time of purchasing the said policy OPs assured that the next installment automatically will be deducted from the IDBI Bank account of complainant. Thereafter, OP did not give any information about the policy nor his agency give any satisfactory reply to complainant after repeated request. Complainant has came to know that OPs without any intimation closed the said policy. Thereafter, complainant many times visited to OPs but OPs always postponed the matter on false assurance and then flatly refused to release the amount. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence his complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; limitation; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is disputing the terms and conditions of the policy which was issued in January, 2017 whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint in January, 2021 after the expiry of four years. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for refund of premium under the policy in question.  As per terms and conditions of the policy, the policy of the complainant has been lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal premiums. The life assured has enjoyed the insurance cover for the period for which insurance premium was paid by him. Having enjoyed the risk cover for the period, he has paid the premium, the demand for refund of premium is prosperous. That means complainant has demanded free insurance cover which is not legally maintainable. It is further pleaded that OPs have received only initial premium under the policy. The renewal premium due on 20.04.2017 and onwards was not received by the OP and hence the policy lapsed. The policy was having three years revival period, but the complainant did not revive the policy during the stipulated revival period. Hence, the policy was terminated. Further, the policy has not acquired paid up or surrender value and hence nothing is payable under the policy. It is further pleaded that OPs received duly filled and signed proposal form bearing no.1PQT176207 dated 19.01.2017 alongwith initial proposal deposit of Rs.9000/- in the name of Mr. Maya Ram. Accordingly, a policy bearing no.1P698175310 was issued with date of commencement 20.01.2017 for a basic sum assured of Rs.4,50,000/- for a policy term of 16 years and premium paying term of 13 years and the frequency of premium payment as monthly. The original policy was sent to the registered address of the complainant through speed post and the same was duly received by the complainant. It is further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy under clause no.9 General Terms, 13.1. Freelook period, 13.1.2, if you have purchased the policy through a channel other than distance marketing, you have 15 days from the date of the receipt of this policy to review its terms and conditions. In the present case, complainant did not opt the freelook option and thus the demand to cancel the policy and refund the premium is not tenable. It is further pleaded that the initial amount received with the proposal form was adjusted under the policy for three monthly premium. The next renewal premium was due on 20.04.2017, however, the complainant did not pay the renewal premiums since the date 20.4.2017 onwards and hence the policy lapsed. The OPs are not under any contractual obligation to send any communication to the complainant however as a service gesture the company has sent the Renewal Premium Intimation dated 21.04.2017, lapse intimation dated 05.05.2017 and Lapse Revival Intimated dated 20.10.2017. It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the policy under clause no.10, Revival, 10.1. If premiums are not paid within the grace period, your policy lapses. No benefits are then payable under your policy if your policy has not acquired paid up value…….10.2. You can revive your policy before the expiry of the revival, which is two years from the date of first unpaid premium. In the present case the revival period ended on 20.04.2019.  It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay the premium since the due date 20.4.2017, the revival period of two years expired on 20.4.2019, the policy has not acquired any paid up value or surrender value, hence the policy got terminated and nothing is payable under the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.3 and 4 are given up by the learned counsel for the complainant, vide his statement dated 19.10.2021.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 15.09.2020 Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 15.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Neelam Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of proposal form dated 19.01.2017 Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy dated 03.02.2017 Ex.OP2, copy of renewal premium letter dated 21.04.2017 Ex.OP3, copy of letter dated 05.05.2017 Ex.OP4, copy of lapse notice dated 20.10.2017 Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 15.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased a SBI Life-Smart Champ Insurance policy from OPs. Complainant had paid Rs.9000/- as installment. At the time of purchasing the said policy OPs assured that the next installment automatically will be deducted from the IDBI Bank account of complainant.  He further argued that complainant has come to know that OPs without any intimation had closed the said policy. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times but OPs always postponed the matter on false assurance and then flatly refused to release the amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OPs have received only initial premium under the policy. The renewal premium due on 20.04.2017, which was not received by the OPs and hence the policy lapsed. The policy was having three years revival period, but the complainant did not revive the policy during the stipulated revival period and the policy was terminated. He further argued that the policy has not acquired paid up or surrender value and hence nothing is payable under the policy. He further argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the policy in question in January, 2017. It is also admitted that he complainant has paid only three monthly premiums from January, 2017 to March, 2017. It is also admitted that the renewal premiums was due on 20.04.2017 but the same has not been paid by the complainant.

11.           The OPs have taken a plea that the policy in question has been issued in January, 2017 and the present complaint has been filed in January, 2021 after the expiry of four years. Thus, the present complaint is barred by limitation.

12.           Now the question for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

13.           Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

14.           As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, OP has alleged that that the policy in question has been issued in January, 2017 and the present complaint has been filed in January, 2021 after the expiry of four years.  During the period from the year 2017 to 2021 there is no correspondence between the parties. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in the prayer para of the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. The cause of action has arisen in the year 2017 but complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2021 i.e. after the gap of four years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed

15.           Furthermore, as per version of the OPs, OPs have received only initial premium under the policy. The renewal premium due on 20.04.2017, which was not received by the OPs and hence the policy lapsed. The policy was having three years revival period, but the complainant did not revive the policy during the stipulated revival period and the policy was terminated. To prove its version, OPs have placed on file renewal premium letter Ex.OP3 dated 21.04.2017, policy lapse intimation letter Ex.OP4 dated 05.05.2017 and lapse revival intimation notice Ex.OP5 dated 20.10.2017. To rebut the evidence produced by the OPs, complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, it has been proved on file, the policy in question was in lapse mode and complainant is not entitled to refund of the premium deposited by him.

16.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.11.2022.                                                                    

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

               Member                              Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer