DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 25/01/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.12/2016)
Salim
S/o Muhammed,
Adhikarath Veedu,
Thachampara, Mannarkkad
Palakakd - Complainant
V/s
The Branch Manager,
Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
2nd Floor, OK Tower,
Kandath Complex, Kandath Sudevan Road,
Palakkad 678 001 - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The complainant in this case had taken a life insurance policy from the opposite party bearing policy No. C 126817915 on 23/03/2009 for a sum assured value of Rs.2,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.6,610/-had to be paid of annual premium for a period of fifteen years. The policy was for a term of 20 years with a premium paying term of 15 years. The complainant had remitted the premium only on 2009, 2010 & 2011 and there has been default in payment of premium from 2012 onwards. The complainant submits that due to certain financial difficulties he could not remit the further premium. Later on complainant approached the opposite party for the refund of amount paid by him. But the opposite party refused and informed him that, if he could file an application for the same it will be forwarded to the head office and only upon the orders from the head office the amount will be sanctioned to him. The complainant alleges that he had filed a complaint to the opposite party’s office on 13/08/2014. And a reply was issued from the head office directing the opposite party to pay the paid up value but they did it stating one of other reason. The complainant alleges that the above act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part. The complainant submits that he had produced all the necessary documents before the opposite party’s office so as to surrender the claim, but the opposite party informed that they had no directions from the head office and they will intimate him if any information is received from the head office. The complainant further submits that due to the above act of opposite party he had suffered physical, mental and financial hardship. Hence the complainant had approached before the forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- along with 12 % interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental hardship suffered by him along with cost of this proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance through counsel upon notice from the forum and filed their version stating the following.
The above compliant is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitations. The complainant after having paid the premium on 2011 defaulted payment of the subsequent premiums. The above complaint has been filed in 2016, which is after a period of 5 years, and hence, is barred by the law of limitations. Contract of insurance is a contract based on the terms and conditions of the policies and the opposite party is liable only according to the conditions, terms limitations and exclusions of the policy. The plan is an IRDA approved plan. The payment of premium can only be considered as acceptance of the policies to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant had accepted the policy after agreeing to the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the conditions of the policy, if any premium remains unpaid when due, the policy may be lapsed from the due date of the first unpaid premium. As admitted by the complainant he had remitted premium only on 2009, 2010 and 2011 and that there has been default in payment of premium from 2012 onwards. If any premium remains unpaid at the end of its grace period, the policy shall lapse and have no further value except as may be provided under the non forfeiture provisions. If premium is not paid within the grace period, and no non forfeiture option has been elected option 2 of the forfeiture provision will be deemed elected and the policy will be converted in to a reduced paid up insurance. The policy of the complainant was converted in to a reduced paid up insurance. According to the conditions of the policy, the total premiums paid will be refunded at maturity i.e on 29/03/2029, after deduction of taxes applicable at that point of time. The allegation in the complaint that there has been deficiency in service was denied by the opposite party. The further allegation in the complaint that the complainant was not informed of the details at the time of visiting the office was also denied by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of opposite party.
Complaint filed Chief Affidavit. Opposite party also filed Chief Affidavit along with documents. Ext. A1 to A4, A5 series and A6 was marked from the part of the complainant. Ext.B1 series was marked from the side of opposite party. Complainant filed IA 396/16 seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. The direction was given to file interrogatories. Complainant filed interrogatories and opposite party filed answers in the form of affidavit. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration are.
1.Whether the complaint is barred by limitation
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?
3.If so, what are the reliefs entitled to the complainant ?
Issue No.1
We have perused the documents as well as affidavit filed from both
sides. According to the opposite party the above complaint is barred by the law of limitation. The complainant after having paid the premium on 2011 defaulted payment of the subsequent premiums. The above complaint has been filed in 2016, which is after a period of 5 years and hence, it is barred by law of limitations. The complainant submits that he had done correspondence with the opposite party for the payment of the paid up premium and there has been running and current transaction with the opposite party. Ext. A5 is the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated. 19th August 2014, which shows that there has been correspondence with the complainant and the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party cannot content for a position that the above complaint is barred by limitation. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue 2 & 3
The opposite party contented that according to the conditions of the policy, if any premium remains unpaid when due, the policy may be lapsed from the due date of the first unpaid premium. The complainant had admitted in the complaint that there has been default in payment of premium from 2012 onwards. After payment of the first premium, failure to pay subsequent premium on or before its due date will constitute a default in premium payment. If any premium remains unpaid at the end of this grace period the policy has lapsed and have no further value except as may be provided under the non forfeiture provisions. Opposite party contended that according to the conditions of the policy, the policy of the complainant was converted into a reduced paid up insurance and the total premiums paid will be refunded at maturity after deduction of taxes applicable at that point of time. Our Supreme Court has held that “the terms of an insurance policy have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of an insurer and the court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture in to extra liberalism that may result in re-writing the contract of substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties.”
It is obvious from Ext.A5 series the letter issued from the head office of the opposite stating party that however if the complainant wish to surrender the policy he had to approach the opposite party’s office with the certain documents required for the surrender. But the opposite party has stated in the answers filed to the interrogatories that lapse notice was issued to the complainant dated. 23/04/2012. But the complainant was allowed to surrender his policy on 19/08/2014 as evident from Ext. A5.
But the complainant submits that the opposite party did not repay the paid up premium due to the reason that there was no direction from the head office. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In the above context we direct the opposite party to allow the complainant to surrender the policy with necessary documents and to pay him the surrender value as on date of the surrender of the policy. We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the physical, mental & financial hardship suffered by the complainant along with cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees thousand only) as cost of this litigation.
The afore said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipts of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Application Form of Tata AIG Life Insurance Co.Ltd C 126817915
Ext.A2 – First Life Insurance Premium Receipt dated 23.03.2009
Ext.A3 – Renewal Premium Receipt dated. 23.03.2010
Ext.A4 - Policy Deposit receipt dated 09.05.2011
Ext.A5 - Letter from Tata AIA Life Insurance Co.Ltd Surrender for policy dated
19.08.2014
Ext.A6 - Policy refund request dated 13.08.2014
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext. B1 Series - Policy information
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost
