Orissa

Rayagada

CC/143/2019

Noorun Nisha Begam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.   143        / 2019.                                      Date.       24   . 2. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Noorun Nisha Begam,  At:Raniguda Farm,  Po/Dist: Rayagada,  State:  Odisha,    Pin No. 765 001.   Cell   No.8249335994.

                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The   Branch  Manager, LIC of India, Rayagada Branch, Rayagada.

2.The  Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Berhampur Division, Jeevan Prakash, Kodasingi, Po: Berhampur,  Dist: Ganjam, pin No. 760 010, State:Odisha.… Opposite parties.

 Counsel for the parties:                        

For the complainant: - Self.

.For the O.Ps  :- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

 

JUDGEMENT

1.The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment  maturity amounts  over the said   policy No. 572993840  with up-to-date   usual   interest  till realisation for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The  brief facts of case are summarized here under.

2. It is submitted that the O.Ps authorized agent  of the  O.P. came to the  resident of the complainant  and contacted with  him  for opening of one policy in   LICs Jeevan Saral with profits  under  table 165  and term  15 .   The complainant   had  deposited  premium  a  sum of Rs.4,346.00 in yealy premium under LICs Jeevan Saral plan )on Dt. 30th. March, 2010. In  turn  the O.P. had  issued document in favour of the complainant  vide  policy  No.572993840 on Dt. 17th.  April, 2010. That  at the time of  proposal form sign the complainant was asked  by the agent  of the O.Ps to  sign on the doted lines without explaining  the benefits of the  scheme and  the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing.  The complainant had deposited yearly premium     @ Rs.4,346.00 on Dt. 30.3.2010 .There after the complainant had  not   continued the same  policy  in the  above company for financial hardship. So the complainant had  requested  the O.Ps  to return the  deposited amount with interest. But  till  date the complainant  has not received any response from the O.Ps. Hence this complaint  petition before the hon’ble   Forum  to  get  redressal  of  the grievance.

. The  complainant  prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps  to pay the deposited amount  along with accrued interest.

3.On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.  . Hence the O.Ps 3    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

4.Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from  the complainant..    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties.

5.This District Commission examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                     FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was a policy holder bearing No. 572996639 LICs Jeevan Saral (with profits plan)  under  table 165  and term  15 . Again  there is no dispute the complainant     had  deposited  premium  a  sum of Rs.4,346.00 in yearly premium under LICs Jeevan Saral (with profits plan )on Dt. 30^th. March, 2010..   Further  there is no disputes the  above  policy  term and premium payment term   is 15 years.. (copies of the policy bond  is in the file marked as  Annexure-I ). Further  the above policy   sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/-  which was issued in favour of the complainant with yearrly premium amount a sum of Rs..4,346.00.  The aforesaid policy was issued  to the complainant  in her address on Dt. 15.04.2010  basing on duly signed application form by the complainant  Dt. 30.3.2010   being a premium paying term of 15 years and policy term of 15 years.

The O.Ps in their written version contended that   the complainant was required to pay the yearly   premiums @ Rs. 4,346.00 for premium paying term of 15 years but he did not pay the yearly  regular premiums due falls  on Dt.30.04.2011 and onwards. The policy stands cancelled strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions  of the policy. The complainant  has also enjoyed the risk cover for a period of 1 years from commencement of the policy i.e. on Dt.30.3.2010  till  30.3.2011.

 The main grievance of the complainant is that  he had deposited  1 year  .  premium   on Dt.30.4.2010   total amount a sum of Rs.4.,346/-..The complainant had  submitted  in her  petition that   the O.Ps assured the complainant after depositing   premiums she  will  get a maturity value of assured amount .. When the O.Ps  have not disbursed the above assured   she filed C.C. petition before the forum to get the above amount.

          Again the O.Ps have  argued  that the allegation of the complainant regarding to get the assured amount  on completion of some years   from the O.Ps are  groundless and against the policy terms and  conditions,.

             Afore-mentioned facts establish  that nothing  is either  due or legally recoverable by the complainant from the O.Ps and O.Ps have duly complied with the terms and conditions of the policy  contract.  In the ligjht of above facts and contract no cause of action ever arose against  the O.Ps as the present  complaint does not  raise any “Consumer Dispute” and there is no deficiency  on the part of the O.Ps.  The  complainant  has neither a legal  basis nor a  valid cause of action  against the O.Ps to file the present complaint before the  forum. Hence this forum has not  warranted to interfere in to  the present complaint. That the modus operandi of the O.Ps  is different from any insurance sectors and it earnestly follows the rules and  regulations passed by the IRDA and further  functions of its business are carried in accordance with the settled principles of law.  The grievances of the complaint is unworthy of credence.

                      The O.Ps in their written version clearly mentioned  that the application contained a clause of free look period vesting a right on the policy holder to cancel and obtain a refund of premium paid by giving a notice duly signed by the proposer  and directly received by the company within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. In the present case the complainant has not availed the above  free look period in due time. 

Further  the complainant in his  complaint petition   argued  that the O.Ps. was not given any  policy bonds to the complainant and the agent who has received the policy bonds  has intentionally kept the same with him and deprived his valuable right  to go through the policy conditions and as per his suggestion the    premium was paid. To reply  the above argument the  O.Ps in their written version  clearly mentioned  that the  policy papers were received by the complainant  from the O.Ps  through  postal  service..  From the above  discussion it is clear that the complainant was actually  received  policy bond from the O.Ps through postal service.

          Again The O.Ps in their written version contended   that the  O.Ps did not received any information from the complainant towards non-receipt of policy document. The complainant also did not make any  correspondence with the O.Ps  for cancellation of the policy  within free look period and return the premium.

          Further  The O.Ps in their written  version  contended   that the  premium payment notices was duly sent to the complainant to deposit the premium by  Dt. 30.3.2011 but the complainant  did not  deposit the  premium within the grace period for which the lapse notice  was sent to the complainant.. The complainant inspite of such notices did not pay the premium for which the policy lapsed.. 

          The O.Ps in their preliminary objections contended   that the  complainant had not make any application for revival of the policy rather filed the present case with false and afterthought pleas.

          The O.Ps in their written version  contended   that the present case is filed much after the period of limitation of two years on the date of alleged cause of action i.e.  Dt.30.3.2011 on which date the policy lapsed, and the complaint having been filed on  Dt.  1.12.2019 was filed more than two years  after accrual of the cause of action and therefore, is liable  to be dismissed  on this ground  alone. Section-24 A of the C.P.Act,1986 which prescribes the period of limitation for admitting  a complaint, reads as under.

       We perused the complaint petition and written version  filed by both the parties  and on perusal of documents it reveals  that the cause of action arose in the present case   on  Dt.30.3.2011 but the  complainant has filed the above case before  the forum  on Dt. 01.12.2019 after two years   which is a time barred complaint and this forum can not adjudicate this complaint. 

The provision of Section -24  A  of the C.P. Act, 1986  being mandatory and rather  peremptory in nature,  this forum  has no  jurisdiction to entertain  a complaint after expiry of the prescribed    period of limitation, unless the complainant filed  an appropriate application  under  Sub-Section (2) of the said section and satisfies it that he/she  had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint   within the prescribed  period of two years  from the date on which   the cause of action had arisen. 

However, despite the O.Ps having   taken a  specific  preliminary objection  that the complaint  was barred by limitation, the complainants did not choose  to file an application  under section  (2) of Section  24 A seeking  condo nation of delay   in filing  the complaint.  Further the  complainant has not been able to give any  cogent and convincing reason for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation.

In this context the O.Ps relied citation   it is held and report in (2009) 5 SCC 121. In the case of  State Bank of India  Vrs. B.S.Agricultural Industries and in the case of  Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vrs. National  Insurance Co. &Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 768 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed  “Any consumer complaint which is time barred under section 24A of the  C.P. Act, of 1986 deserves to be dismissed in limine”.

Further the O.Ps in their written version contended  that  as per the vision plan if the policy holder fails to pay 3  full years installment premium, the policy  will be  deemed lapsed and all the benefits  will cease immediately. 

Hence, in view of the Section-24  A of the C.P.Act,1986 and non continuation of above policy   the  complaint petition filed by the complainant is dismissed. This forum   do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

 

Again It is held and reported  in CPJ 2008(4) page No.156 the hon’ble  National Commission where in observed  at para-5 “The premium is given by  an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which the  premium has been paid.  it is  not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given.  If after the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of policy or law, could any for a  direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period for which premium had been paid”.

Further the O.Ps relied  citation in their written version.  It is held and reported  in CPJ 2006 (Iv) 239  in the case of  Prema&orsvrs. Life insurance Corporation of India  the  Hon’ble  National Commission, New  Delhi where in observed  “The O.Ps  do  not authorize  the agents to source policies based on  any allurements or false assurances and the O.Ps have acted as per the terms    and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted    that the IRDA has administrative  control over the agents and that the O.Ps do not authorize the agents to source policies based on any allurements of false assurances. Any act of the agent  can not be fastened on the O.Ps and they can not be held  liable for the act and omissions of the agent”.

Again  the O.Ps  relied  citation in their written version, it is held and reported in  CPJ 2003(1) 393 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vrs. HarchandRaiChandanial  and in the case of VikramGreentech(I) Ltd. &Anr. Vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd-II 2009(2)  CPJ-34 where in the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed “ An insurance policy  is to  be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is a binding  contract between the parties and nothing can be added  or subtracted  giving a  different meaning to the words   mentioned therein”.

            This forum  completely agreed with views taken in written version inter alia   the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER

.In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this         24^th.   Day of  February,  2021.

 

 

                                                                                Member.                                                             President