Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/38

Daljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Maini

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :     38

Date of Institution: 3.02.2017

Date of Decision :  17.07.2017

 

Daljeet Kaur wife of Sahib Singh Virk s/o Gurdial Singh, r/o Street No. 4 (L) back side Anand Kutia, Green Avenue (L), Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                           

                                                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

1.  Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India Jivan Parkash Model Town Road, Jallandhar.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Faridkot, Bhan Singh Colony, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot through its Manager.

                                                                          .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Lalit Maini, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to accept the claim alongwith interest pertaining Police no.133184259 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that husband of complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing no.133184259 from OPs and being his legal heir, she is the consumer of OPs. It is submitted that husband of complainant died on 30.01.2012 in an accident and she did not know about the policy in question and she came to about this fact in June, 2016, when OPs sent a letter in the name of her husband asking him to deposit the premium amount pertaining to policy in question. Complainant approached OPs and submitted her claim alongwith all requisite documents to them. OP-2 assured complainant that her claim would be passed within a month, but thereafter, despite several requests and legal notice issued by complainant, OPs did not make payment of policy in question. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement wherein took preliminary objection that policy in question is lying in lapsed condition as on the date of death, claim can not be considered under Chairman Relaxation Rules or under Claim Concession, because policy has run for only one year and six months and even as per terms and conditions of policy, nothing is payable to complainant. it is averred that present complaint is time barred and it involves complicated questions of law and facts, which can not decided in summary proceedings. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is further averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as per terms and conditions of policy, complainant is not entitled to claim any amount as the policy had lapsed since 15.12.2011 due to non payment of premium. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed their evidence.

6                          In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of H S Gupta as Ex OP-1and documents Ex OP-2 to 6 and then, closed the evidence.  

7                         We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                         Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that husband of complainant purchased an insurance policy from OPs and being his legal heir, she is the consumer of OPs. Husband of complainant died on 30.01.2012 in an accident and she did not know about the policy in question and she came to about this fact in June, 2016, when OPs sent a letter in the name of her husband asking him to deposit the premium amount pertaining to policy in question. Complainant approached OPs and submitted her claim alongwith all requisite documents to them. OP-2 assured complainant that her claim would be passed within a month, but thereafter, despite several requests and legal notice issued by complainant, OPs did not make payment of claim amount of policy in question, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                               To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs asserted that policy in question is lying in lapsed condition as on the date of death, claim can not be considered under Chairman Relaxation Rules or under Claim Concession, because policy had run for only one year and six months and even as per terms and conditions of policy, nothing is payable to complainant. It is averred that present complaint is time barred and it involves complicated questions of law and facts, which can not decided in summary proceedings. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is further averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as per terms and conditions of policy, complainant is not entitled to claim any amount as the policy had lapsed since 15.12.2011 due to non payment of premium. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

10                         The case of the complainant is that husband of complainant had purchased a complainant and complainant did not know about this fact. When OPs wrote letter dated 17.06.2017 in the name of husband asking him to deposit the premium amount pertaining to policy in question, she came to know about this policy and then she filed her claim with OPs and requested them to make payment of insurance claim, but OPs have not passed the claim in spite of several requests and issuance of legal notice to them. On the other hand, OPs have stressed mainly on the point that policy had run for only one and half year and it is lying in lapsed condition due to failure to make payment of premiums. No intimation regarding death of Sahib Singh the husband of complainant is ever given to them. Moreover, claim is time barred and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

11                                         Ld Counsel for OPs argued that Sahib Singh husband of complainant purchased the policy in question from them for a sum assured of Rs. 2 lacs with date of commencement 15.06.2010 and date of maturity 15.06.2021. He had to pay the premium of the policy quarterly with due date 15^th of every quarter. In case where insured have to pay the premium in yearly or half yearly mode, then in that case, he is given a grace period for payment of premium after the due date for one month and in case of quarterly payment the grace period is given for 15 days if he pays the premium payment within grace period or in case any mishappening within period of grace period, all the benefits under the policy shall be given to his legal heirs, but if he fails to pay the premium even in the grace period then in that case, the policy will go in lapsed condition and in that case, no benefit under the policy can be claimed. In the present case, the frequency of payment of premium was quarterly. Sahib Singh paid last premium on 7.10.2011, which was due in September, 2011. The next premium was due on 15.12.2011, but he did not pay the premium even in the grace period of 15 days, which was also elapsed on 31.12.2011 and policy turned into lapsed condition. Admittedly, the said Sahib Singh died on 30.01.2012 when his policy was in lapsed condition. As such, complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the policy in question. As per terms and conditions of the policy, even they cannot claim the refund of amount paid by her husband as premium. As per terms and conditions of the Policy, the surrender value of the Policy can only be claimed after continuous three years of policy, but in the present case, the Policy in question continued for only a period of one and half year, so, nothing is payable under the policy to complainant. Moreover, the present complaint is time barred as admittedly, the Sahib Singh died on 30.01.2012 and complainant filed the present complaint on 3.02.2017 i.e after about a period of 5 years from the death of Sahib Singh. As per section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation of filing the complaint is two years from the date of occurrence of cause of action, but in the present case, the time of cause of action was 2012 when Sahib Singh died. As such, present complaint deserves dismissal.

12                               From the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and we are of considered opinion that complaint filed by complainant is time barred and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Plea taken by complainant that she did not have any knowledge about currency of policy does not seem appropriate. Moreover, it is unacceptable that after death of her husband on 30.01.2012, she did not find any document pertaining to policy in question from her house. Therefore, present complaint is hereby dismissed being time barred and it is devoid of any merits. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 17.07.02017

                                                Member                   President

                                                          (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)