DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  12^th  day of August,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                              

 Date of Filing: 24/10/2018    

     CC/133/2018

T.Narayanankutty,

S/o.Eacharan Nayar,

XI/121, Thekkedath House,

Kunissery Post,

Palakkad, Kerala.

(By Adv.M.Rajesh)                                                      -                       Complainant

                                                                                                  Vs

1. Branch  Manager,

       PNB MetLife Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

       Nirmal Chambers, 1^st Floor,

      Opp.Bharathmatha School,   

      Chandranagar, Palakkad 678007

2. PNB MetLife Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

       Rep. by Managing Director,

       Brigade Shesh Mahal – 5,

       Vani vilas Road, Basavanagudi,

       Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 004                   -                       Opposite parties

(OP1 & 2 by Adv. K.N.Sreelatha)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Complaint pleadings, in short, is that the complainant availed a Met Smart Life Policy bearing No.20315305 issued by the opposite party on 31/3/2010 with a term  of 43 years. The annual premium payable was 36,000/-. He paid premium for 5 years. During the month of April, 2015, when the complainant approached the opposite party 1 to remit the premium, he was informed that the policy was foreclosed.  The complainant alleged that the foreclosure is unilateral, premature and illegal and tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complaint is filed seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,80,000/- together with 18% interest from the date of policy, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
2. The opposite parties filed versions countering the complaint pleadings. They pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complainant had failed to remit the renewal premium that became due on 31/3/2015. Since the premium was not paid in time and within the grace period, the policy was foreclosed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy agreement. There was no illegality whatsoever since the complainant had availed the 15 days grace period after issuance of the policy to get himself acquainted with the terms and conditions upon which the insurance is issued. Opposite Parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The following issues arise for consideration.

1.  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether there was any default on the part of complainant in effecting remittance of renewal premium?
3. Whether termination of policy is unilateral and without notice?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
5.   Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
6.  Reliefs,  if any ?

Evidence on the part of both the parties comprised of proof affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the part of complainant and Ext.B1 on the part of opposite parties. 

            Issue No. 1

4. It is seen from the pleadings of the complainant himself in paragraph 2 of the memorandum of complaint  that he had failed to remit the premium that became due on 31/3/2015. He came to have notice of the foreclosure during the month of April, 2015. Therefore the cause of action started at the latest by 30/4/2015. As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (applicable Act), a complaint shall be filed within two years from the date on which cause  of action  has arisen. Therefore the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 30/4/2017. This complaint is seen filed on 24/10/2018.
5.  The wordings of Section 24-A leaves no stone unturned when it asserts  that a District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. S. 24-A is not in the form of a statement simpliciter. It clearly prohibits by an express command to the
   Commission not to accept any complaint after a period of two years.

Further, the complainant has also not had the delay condoned under S. 24-A (2). Therefore this complaint is barred by limitation.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3

6.         Courtesy the finding on issue number 1, a consideration of these issues are merely pedantic. Even as per the pleadings of the complainant,  in para 2 of the memorandum of  complaint, he approached the opposite party during April, 2015. Due date of premium is shown in Ext. A1, page 1 as the 31^st March of every year.

Clause 3.2.1 of Ext. A1 states that “If you pay Regular Premium due on the due date, then We will allow a grace period of 30 days(15 days if Regular Premium is due monthly).    

7.         On 10/4/2014, the opposite party had issued  Ext.A3 communication to the complainant stating the date of last premium and the date of next premium. Considering it was the complainant himself who has produced Ext. A3 communication, we presume he was in receipt of the same. Eventhough the complainant has stated that he contacted the opposite party   sometime in April, the first written evidence of his contact with the opposite party is seen made on 9/7/2015, i.e. well beyond the 30 days grace period from 31/03/2015, when he has issued Ext. A4 communication, seeking refund of the amounts deposited and not for revalidation or reinstatement after Auto Surrender. The complainant has failed to take us through statement of accounts or relevant documents to prove that he is entitled to the benefits under Clause 2.3 of Ext. A1 policy document.

 It seems that the complaint has totally ignored Ext. A3  communication and its crucial nature and the various terms and conditions of Ext. A1 as are applicable to him.

8.         Therefore, considering that the complainant has not renewed the policy after having knowledge of the due dates of payment of premium and even after having received Ext. A3 communication, we hold that the foreclosure was in accordance with the terms and conditions of Ext.A1 policy document. Hence, on facts as well, this complaint is bound to fail.

9.         Accordingly, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation and lack in merits. Resultantly, this complaint is dismissed.

Issue Nos.4 to 6

10.       Considering the findings in the preceding issues, there need not be any further discussion on these issues. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 12^th  day of August,  2022.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                             Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                              Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –    Original Policy document dated 13/4/2010

Ext.A2 –    Copy of  Statement of Accounts dated 26/9/2013

Ext.A3 –   Original renewal premium receipt dated 10/4/2014

Ext.A4 –   Copy of a letter dated 9/7/15

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of communication dated 11/7/2015

Ext.A6 -  Print out of email communication dated 15/9/2015

Ext.A7 – Print out of email  communication dated 16/9/2015

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 –  Photocopy of Terms and Conditions of the policy alongwith proposal form dated

                29/3/2010

Court Exhibit

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Court Witness

Nil

Cost :  No cost  allowed

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.