West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/5/2016

Sukesh Ranjan Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Tata AIA Life Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint Case No.05/2016

 

Sukesh Ranjan Maity………...……Complainant.

Versus

B.M., TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Kharagpur Br.……………….…Opp. Party.

                                                         

    Order No.09.                                                                                    Date : 24/05/2016                                                                      

 

                         The case record is put up before us for passing order.

                     This is a case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Sukesh Ranjan Maity against Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.

                  Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is a senior citizen and one Amit Kundu introduced himself before the complainant as an Agent of Tata AIG Life Insurance and he told that his Company has introduced a new Life Insurance Policy namely Tata AIG Shubh Life and also told that the said policy is a single premium based policy and the purchaser will get return of Rs.42,218/- after six years against payment of one time/single premium amounting to Rs.20,073/-. Hearing that, the complainant agreed to purchase the aforesaid policy upon the said terms and conditions and thereafter he paid Rs.20,073/- on 18/10/2010.  After taking this policy, the complainant received the policy documents i.e. manual book of the aforesaid policy after passing of three months from the date of enrollment on 20/10/2010.  After receiving the said documents, the complainant was astonished to see that the said policy documents is issued for 10 years and also not a in Single Premium Policy and therefore the complainant went to the company’s Office for query about the policy.  On reaching to the company’s Office,  the staff of the Insurance Company assured him that the policy documents in not correct or match with his obtaining policy and it was also deducted that the name of the complainant has been wrongly recorded as Sukesh Maity instead of his actual name Sukesh Ranjan Maity.  Said Amit Kundu told the complainant that the Company had sent a wrong policy document through

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

 mistake.  It was told by the staff of the opposite party-company that the original policy document is required to submit before the office of the opposite party for it’s necessary correction and accordingly the complainant deposited the original policy documents before the Branch Office of the opposite party- Insurance Company in good faith without receiving any acknowledgement and after 8 months later, he was called for from the office of the opposite party for payment of second installment of his policy.  Complainant refused to pay the second installment as he accepted the said policy as single premium policy but he was told by the staff of the Company that if he did not pay the said sum of Rs.20,044/- as  second premium then his policy will be  lapsed.  Complainant was therefore compelled to deposit Rs.20,044/- on 18/10/2011 under threat of cancellation of the said policy.  At that time,  he was told by the staff of the company that if his policy was  accepted as single premium policy,  then he would get refund of extra deposit amount of Rs.20,044/- as per rules of the company.  As the complainant thereafter did not receive the original policy document after waiting for a long time, then he went to the office of the opposite party but he found that the office of the company was not there.  On 20/07/2012, the complainant received a letter and came to know that the address of the office of the company has been changed and the name of the opposite party - company has also been changed from Tata AIG Life to Tata AIA Life.  After receiving the said letter, the complainant went to the new office of opposite party-company and the staff of the company told him that there is no entry of such type of policy.  Three months thereafter, the opposite party-company asked the complainant to deposit Rs.20,073/- and under compulsion, the complainant had to deposit the  said amount.  After payment of three installments, the complainant received the original policy document in the year 2014 and after receiving the same, he noticed that some important pages had been torned out there from and no correction was made from the side of the opposite party - company in spite of repeated assurance from the side of the opposite party-Insurance Company.  Thereafter the complainant asked the opposite party- company for refund of extra two premium on the ground that the policy was single premium policy but in spite of a repeated requests, the opposite party-Insurance Company informed that they are unable to refund the premium already paid by the complainant.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to refund the extra two premium of Rs.20.073/- each with interest and for litigation cost and compensation.

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

                     Opposite party-Insurance Company received notice of this case but in spite of that, they did not appear to contest this case.  Hence the ex parte hearing.               

 

Point for decision

                    

                                                             Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

   

                     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination- in- chief in evidence and he was also examined on oath as PW-1 and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 7 respectively.  In his evidence, the complainant has fully corroborated the case of his petition of complaint.  It appears from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence of PW-1, the complainant, that he obtained the said policy in question on 18/10/2010 on payment of Rs.20,073/- and after passing of three month from the date of enrollment  of that policy i.e. on 20/10/2010, the complainant came to know that the policy has been issued for 10 years and also it is not for single premium policy.  So the cause of action of this case arose in the first part of the year 2011,  when the complainant came to know that his policy was not issued as single premium policy, although he was told by the Agent of the O.P.-company that the said policy was a single premium based policy.  Although the cause of action arose in the first part of the year 2011, but the present complaint has been filed on 08/01/2016 i.e. long after the period of limitation of 2 years.   So in view of Section 24A of the C.P. Act, the present petition of complaint is barred by limitation and as such the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

              Hence, it is,

                                      Ordered,

                              that the complaint case no.05/2016  is hereby dismissed ex- parte.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

 

Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                     Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                                    Member                                           President

                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur