Date of filing:-18/08/2021.                                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Order/Judgement:-31/01/2023.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 49 of 2021.

     Pushpanjali  Dash, aged about 42 years, wife of Chandramani Dash, resident of   Dhubenpali, Po.Areigudi, Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh, presently residing At. Nigamananda Vihar, Ward No. 1 Lane No.10, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh

                                                                                                       .....       Complainant.

V e r s u s

     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd, through its Manager 2nd Floor, Shiva Complex, Opp. State Bank of India, Budharaja, Sambalpur, Po/Ps. Sambalpur and Dist. Sambalpur.

                                                                                             …..  Opposite Party.                         

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-               :- Sri P.K. Acharya and Associates.

For the Opposite Party :-             :- Sri Jagannath Sarangi

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.31/01/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was insured with the Opposite party under policy No. 1N577852110 for an insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only commencing from Dt. 28/02/2017 for a period of 15 years where a premium of Rs. 17,648/-(Rupees seventeen thousand six hundred forty eight)only  was payable every year. On 28/02/2017 the Complainant paid the first premium i.e. at the time of commencement of the policy, where upon policy was issued. Next premium due on 28/02/2018 was also paid by the Complainant. Due to some financial difficulties, the Complainant could not paid the premiums falling due in 2019 and 2020. After march 2020, the Complainant could not arrange to pay the premiums due to the world wide pandemic situation caused by Covid 19. The Complainant somehow managed the arrear premium amount for the  year 2019 and 2020 and approach the Opposite party to receive the premium of 2019 and 2020 may be with interest along with the premium for the current year of 2021. But the Opposite Party refused to receive the amount from the Complainant and told her that the policy has already lapsed due to non payment of premiums for the year 2019 and 2020. The Complainant requested the Opposite party to revive her policy by receiving the arrear premium amount with interest but the Opposite party paid a deaf ear to the request of the Complainant. The Policy taken by the  Complainant was a money back policy withy survival benefit. The act of not receiving the arrear amount and not reviving the policy amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2. The Case of the Opposite party is that the Opposite Party SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Filed its version and submitted that the Complainant is not coming within the Jurisdiction of the Bargarh Commission and barred by Limitatin. Further submitted that the Opposite party sent a renewal premium intimation on 14/01/2019. But the Complainant did not pay the premium intimation on 14/01/2019. But the Complainant did not pay the premium for the due date 28/02/2019. Hence the policy lapsed. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
3. Perused the Complaint petition and version and documents filed by both the parties, the following issues are framed:-

                        1. Whether the Complaint is coming under the jurisdiction of this Commission?

                        2. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?

                        3. Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in its service?

                        4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

      Issue No.1.

                        The Opposite party in its version submitted that the Complaint is not coming under the jurisdiction of this Commission as the address of Opposite party is at Sambalpur. According to Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Complainant can file case at the place where he  resides. The Complainant is the resident of Dhubenpali, Dist. Bargarh. Hence the Complaint is maintainable under this Commission.

Issue No.2.

            The Opposite party submitted that the Complaint is barred by limitation as the policy was issued in February 2017. The cause of action arise in 2017 and the Complainant filed this case after a gap of more than 3 years. Hence the Complaint is barred by limitation and should be dismissed. But in the present case the cause of action arise in 2021 when the Opposite Party refused to receive the premium amount from the Complainant. Hence this case is not barred by limitation.

Issue No.3.

The Opposite party submitted that the policy was lapsed due to non payment of premium. The Opposite party has no deficiency as the Opposite party intimated for renewal of the premium on 14/01/2019. According to the term and condition of  policy the revival period is 2 years period from the due date of first unpaid premium. The due date of first unpaid premium was 28/02/2019. The Opposite party submitted that the revival period expires on 28/02/2021. Thus the demand of the Complainant to revive the policy or refund of the premium is not tanable. The Honble Supreme Court during CORONA pandemic situation exempted 2 years for financial institution for litigation. In this case when the Complainant approached the Opposite party to receive the premium for the year 2019 and 2020 with interest and premium for the year 2021, it was the duty of the Opposite party to consider the matter. But the Opposite party did not consider the matter and taking plea that there is no deficiency on the  part of the Opposite party as the Opposite party intimated the matter before lapse of the policy. Non receiving premium and not reviving the policy by the Opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service on the  part of the Opposite party.

Issue No.4.

            For deficiency in service of the Opposite party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.

            Accordingly the following order is made:-

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite party. The Opposite party is directed to revive the policy after taking pending premium from the Complainant or refund the paid premium to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only for Compensation and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only for litigation expences. Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.

Order pronounced in open court on this 31^th day of  January 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties. 

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                            and corrected by me.                                                                                           

                 I  agree/-                                                                       

        ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)                                                                  (Jigeesha Mishra)

              Dt.31/01/2023                                                                            Dt.31/01/2023

              M e m b e r  (w)                                                                        P r e s i d e n t

        Uploaded by

(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)

      Office Assistant.