Haryana

Ambala

CC/233/2020

Jamil Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Sharma

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	233 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	16.10.2020
Date of decision	:	01.03.2023

 

Jamil Ahmed son of Mohd. Yusuf, resident of House No.245/6, Naya Bans Bazar, Near Jain School, Ambala City.

……. Complainant

VERSUS

SBI Life Insurance, 1st Floor, Triloki Chamber, Above Canara Bank, Opposite M.C. Building, Ambala Cantt.

….…. Opposite Party

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.  

                              Shri U.S. Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the OP

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                 Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

i) To refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest from the date of receipt till its realization

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of loss, harassment, pain, agony suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

                             OR

Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2009 the complainant had taken the Policy bearing No.24074285404, proposal No.249444800 from the OP on making payment of Rs.50,000/- i.e. last payment received on 11.2.2009, last premium due paid on 2.3.2009. Thereafter, due to family problem as well as financial problem the complainant was unable to continue with the said policy. As the complainant was unable to continue with the said policy, he continuously requested to the OP to return his amount of Rs.50,000/- but the OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other by giving the false promises that it will return the same but all in vain. Finding no way, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 31.8.2020 upon the OP but the same went unanswered. The OP has failed to provide proper service to the complainant and as such it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is time barred as the complainant is disputing the terms and conditions of the policy issued in the year 2009 and demanding refund of premium paid in 2009; complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act; the allegations made in the complaint require a thorough investigation and examination and cross- examination of witnesses which are beyond the purview of this Commission under summary proceedings etc. On merits, while admitting the fact that the complainant, had applied for Unit plus Plan vide proposal no. 249444800 dated 11.02.2009 with a proposal deposit of Rs.50,000/-, it has been stated that the complainant had opted for half Yearly regular mode for payment of premium, for term of ten years. Based on the documents and information provided alongwith proposal form, policy no. 24074285404 with date of commencement as 02.03.2009 was issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant has paid only initial half yearly premium of Rs.50000/- under the policy. The policy lapsed due to nonpayment of premiums since the due date. Terms and conditions of the policy, do not provide for cancellation of policy and refund of premium at this point of time and hence the demand of the complainant for refund of premium either with or without interest is not maintainable. The complainant has also availed the valuable risk cover for the period for which the premium was paid by him. Had there been any unfortunate insured event, the OP would have paid the insured amount. Thus, the complainant cannot get the benefit of a valuable risk cover and also the refund of the entire premium. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Neelam Singh, Authorized Signatory of the OP-Company-SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP. 
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by no refunding the amount of premium paid by the complainant, despite the fact that number of requests were made in the matter, as the  complainant was not in financial condition to pay the remaining premium, the OP is deficient in providing service.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP submitted that the present complaint is time barred as the complainant is disputing the terms and conditions of the policy issued in 2009 and demanding refund of premium paid in 2009. He further submitted that the date of commencement of the policy was 02.03.2009 and the premium was payable half yearly i.e. on 2nd September and 2nd March every year for ten years’ term, yet the complainant has paid only initial half yearly premium of Rs.50000/- under the policy in question and thereafter failed to pay the same, as such, the complainant cannot get the benefit of a valuable risk cover or refund of the premium.
8.           Before going into the merits of this case, first we will like to decide that, as to whether this complaint is within limitation or not? Perusal of record reveals that it was for the first time on 2.3.2009 that the complainant had taken the Policy bearing No.24074285404, Annexure C-1 after filing proposal No.249444800 from the OP on making of payment  premium of Rs.50,000/-. It is also coming out from the said policy that the complainant had opted for half Yearly regular mode for payment of premium for the term of ten years and the date of maturity of the said policy was 02.03.2029. It is the own case of the complainant that due to family problem as well as financial problem he was unable to continue the said policy, as a result of which he continuously requested the OP to return his amount of Rs.50,000/- but to no avail, as a result of which, he served a legal notice dated 31.8.2020 upon the OP but the same went unanswered. Thus, from the sequence of events narrated above, it can easily be said that the cause of action if any had arisen in favour of the complainant on 02.03.2011 i.e. two years from the date of issuance of the policy. It is not out of place to mention here that complainant had to pay premium amount of Rs.50,000/- for the first year policy i.e upto 02.03.2010, as such, in that eventuality two years stood expired on 02.03.2012 but he did not file the complaint, in the year 2011-2012. 

It may be stated here that the mere fact that the legal notice was sent to the OP on 31.08.2020 will not extend the period of limitation, which expired in the year 2011/2012. Our this view finds full support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Geo Miller & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd [(2020) 14 SCC 643] wherein it was held that mere correspondence by way of writing letters/reminders subsequent would not extend the period of limitation.

9.           It is therefore held that since the complainant being negligent has failed to file this complaint within the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of cause of action, as such, now this complaint having been filed in October 2020 is highly barred by limitation, as such, in our considered opinion, even then if we proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank Of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009,   wherein it was held as under:-           
   • If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside……”

 

10.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 01.03.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President