BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL
C.C.Case No. 80 of 2017
Jitendra Kumar Behera, aged about 36 years
S/o Patitapaban Behera, At: Kanchan Bazar,
PS: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal …........Complainant
Versus
1) Branch Manager, Max Life Insuran ce Co. Ltd,
Link Road, Cuttack
2) Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd.,
Mahaveer Bazar, Dhenkanal …........Opp. Parties
Present: Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member
Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member
Counsel: For the complainant: Sri Satyaranjan Satpathy & Associates
For the Opp. Party No.1: Sri Chinmoy Patra & Associates
For the Opp. Party No. 2: Sri Bishnu Kalyan Mangaraj
Date of hearing argument: 28.5.2018
Date of order: 30.5.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member
The complainant has filed the present case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties praying therein for a direction to the O.P.No.1 to revive the policy of the complainant and to award cost and compensation of Rs. 60,000/ in favour of him.
1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant is that that he is an account holder vide A/c No.9120100001312834 under the O.P.No.2 bank where he make transaction regularly. The O.P.No.2 approached the complainant to open one Max Life Guaranteed Monthly Income Plan Policy and accordingly the proposal form was signed and Policy No.892236605 was issued after payment of 1st premium of Rs. 46,009/-. Along with other terms and conditions of the policy the complainant has to pay premium in six consecutive years and the return i.e. monthly income commence from the completion of policy term. The O.P.No.2 being the channel partner was authorized to deduct the premium amount from the account of the complainant and accordingly the O.P.No.2 deducted 2nd year premium amount in the month of September-2014 and the next premium was due on September-2015. For non-payment of premium on September-2015 and subsequent premiums the policy was lapsed which was not intimated to the complainant by the O.Ps. In the month of September-2016 i.e. one year from the date of 1st unpaid premium the complainant had been to the office of the O.P.No.2 to make payment of the premium along with the arrear outstanding premium amount but the O.P.No.2 did not receive the premium with a reply that policy is not in force due to non-payment of premium in time. The O.P.No.2 asked the O.P.No.1 for revival of the policy. On 11.7.2017 the O.P.No.2 expressed his inability for revival of the policy. On 19.7.2017 the complainant visited the office of the O.P.No.1 personally with a representation for revival of the policy but till date the O.P.No.1 did not take any action on it. It is pleaded that the lapsed policy can be revived as per insurance law within 5 years from the date of 1st unpaid premium. But the O.P.No.1 harassed the complainant and did not redress his grievance by violating the provisions of law which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, finding no other alternative the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for the reliefs as prayed for in his complaint petition.
2) The Opp. Parties appeared and filed their written version. It is in the version of the Opp. Party No.1 that the case is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant has availed a policy bearing No.892236605 with sum insured value of Rs. 3,60,000/- and policy name is “Max Life Guaranteed Income Plan( 6 pay) with policy enforced date 28.9.2017. The first premium of Rs. 46,009/- was paid and subsequent premium amount was fixed at Rs. 45,427/- which was payable for next five years as the premium paying term is for six years and policy terms is also for six years. The mode of payment of premium was annual as per option selected by the petitioner in the proposal form. The O.P.No.1 repeatedly brought to the notice of the complainant about the dishonor of the ECS Mandate towards policy. The First ECS fail notice on 9.10.2015 was sent to the complainant by the O.P.No.1 on draw date 8.10.2015 for Rs. 45,427.24 The Second ECS Fail Notice was sent on 26.10.2015 sent to the complainant with an option to renew the policy within six months as per terms contained in the policy bond . The complainant instead of renewing the policy as per the mandate remained silent for one year and 9 months . On 19.7.2017 all of a sudden the complainant had made an intimation to the O.P.No.1 about his interest to renew the policy and the O.P.No.1 on spot repudiated his claim as the policy was already terminated and lapsed and hence revival of the said policy is not possible. As per clause 8 of the policy bond it is strictly provided that a request for revival should be done within six months from the due date of the premium and revival of the policy is at the absolute discretion of the company. There is no violation of law that had ever been done by the O.P.No.1 and all the allegations of the complainant are vague . The policy is in no way can be revived as it lapsed and not within the grace period for revival. Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the complaint with cost as there is no deficiency of service.
3) The Opp. Party No.2 in his written version has averred that the O.P.No.2 is a scheduled Commercial Bank and cannot carry on Insurance Business as per the provisions of Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The policy in question was issued by Opp. Party No.1 for which no claim can be made against O.P.No.2. The complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.No.2 The role of the Opp. Party No.2 is only of the facilitator. The O.P.No.2 had not rendered any sort of insurance related service to the complainant for which the present dispute does not come within the definitions of Consumer, Complainant, Complaint and Service. . The complainant on his own volition had opted for making an application for the Policy in question and the policy was issued by the O.P.No.1 with realization of Rs. 46,099/- from the petitioner towards 1st Premium. Subsequently as per ECS mandate given by the complainant the 2nd Premium of Rs. 45,328.39 was paid on 8.10.2014 by the complainant from his S.B.Account maintained in the O.P.Bank. The 3rd premium of Rs. 45,329.39 which was due on 8.10.2015 could not debited from the account of the complainant as there was no sufficient balance in the S.B.Account of the complainant. The attention of the complainant regarding the lapsation of the policy due to non-payment of the 3rd installment of premium was drawn time and again by the O.Ps since September-2015. The complainant had neither approached the O.P.no.1 nor its agents nor the O.P.No.2 at any point of time for revival of his lapsed Policy. Accordingly, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and the case is liable to be dismissed.
4) That the petitioner in support of his case has filed the copy of the letter dated 19.7.2017 delivered to O.P.No.1, copy of the letter of O.P.No.1 to the complainant dated 11.10.2013, copy of the policy issued to the complainant dated 11.10.2013 with all its annexures, copy of the application form. On the other hand the O.P.No.1 has filed the same documents as has been filed by the petitioner. In addition to that he has filed copy of the letter dated 28.10.2015, 9.10.2015 and 26.10.2015 addressed to the complainant. The O.P.No.2 has not filed any document in support of his case. The petitioner has filed his evidence in chief in shape of affidavit and the O.P.No.2 has filed his evidence in chief in support of his case.
5) That the principal allegation of the complainant is that the O.P.No.1 is unwilling and made refusal to revive the policy on receipt of the defaulting installments. The Opp. Party No.1 has clearly mentioned in his written version that the complainant did not make payments in time for which he was intimated on 9.10.2015 to make payment as he had less balance in his account followed by another reminder on 26.10.2015 and subsequently the policy lapsing intimation on 28.10.2015. Even though the O.P.No.1 has filed the copies of these letters there is nothing on record to show that such letters were issued to the petitioner nor there is any proof of service of these letters on him. The complainant in his complaint petition has stated as per insurance law the policy can be revived within a period of five years from the date of lapse. He has also not filed any document to substantiate his claim.
So we have to examine the terms and conditions of the policy regarding lapse and revival thereof. Clause-8 of the policy clearly speaks a policy shall lapse if the premium is not paid for at least three consecutive years. The O.P.No.1 in his written statement has admitted that the petitioner has approached them on dated 19.7.2017 i.e. after a lapse of one year and nine months as mentioned in para-4 of the written statement. It is crystal clear that by not accepting his request the O.P.No.1 has violated condition stipulated in clause-8 of the policy bond.
It is stated in the written version that it is strictly provided that a request for revival should be done within six months from the due date of premium and revival of the policy is at the absolute discretion of the company. It appears that the O.P.No.1 has not properly understood the contents of clause-8.2 (i) of the policy and has not gone through clause-8 of the Policy bond before reading the provisions of clause 8.2 (i) . As per the said clause a lapsed policy is to be revived on the application of the complainant when the last date for payment of premium is due after lapsation of the policy. In the instant case the policy itself has not lapsed since the last premium i.e. the 2nd premium was paid in the month of September-2014. When a period of three years has not passed from the date of the last payment of premium as per the terms in clause 8 of the Policy bond the policy is in force and notice by O.P.No.1 beyond the agreed terms that the policy will lapse if payment is not made before three consecutive years is illegal in the eyes of law. Since the O.P.No.1 did not accept the request of the complainant to receive the arrear premium with interest as applicable before the policy has lapsed it amounts to deficiency in service and there is a foul smell of conspiracy to exploit to the policy holder in the name of lapsation in utter violation of the terms of contract between the parties. In view of the aforesaid discussions it is crystal clear that the O.P.No.1 by refusing to accept the premium has acted beyond the terms of contract for which he is liable for causing deficiency in service and practicing unfair trade practice with the complainant. Hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.P.No.1 and dismissed as against O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 is directed to accept the defaulting premium of the petitioner and restore the policy to its original position. The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the complainant for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied with by the O.P.No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy) (Sri Purna Chandra Mishra)
Member Member
