DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 52 of 2019

 

Smt. Manju Das,

W/O. Lt. Nitai Das,

Resident of Jagatpur, Abhoynagar,

P.S. East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, 799005….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Chairman,

TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.

14th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. 

 

2. The Managing Director,

TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Delphi-B Wing, 2nd floor, Orchard,

Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park,

Powai, Mumbai-400076. 

 

3. The Branch Manager, 

TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.

1st floor, 1 Mantribari Road, 

Agartala. Pin-799001........................................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

DR  (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Joydeep Paul,

  Sri Haridas Datta,

  Advocates.

 

 

For the O.Ps.    : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 05 /02/2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Manju Das, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining against the O.Ps. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Husband of the Complainant died in harness while in service in the BSF, 2nd Battalion in the year, 2011. After husband's death, her eldest son namely Sri Pranab Das was appointed under the disposal of Commandant, 20 Battalion, BSF. After the admissible benefit as per law and with such financial benefits, the Complainant took a Life Insurance Policy from the O.Ps. i.e. TATA AIE Life Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No.C026502870 and the Complainant paid the 1st premium totaling Rs.20,000/- on 31st October, 2012. After joining the service her son started sufferings from various ailments and due to his deteriorated health condition he resigned from his service and as such they fell into ocean of misery due to financial constraints. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a petition before the appropriate authority expressing her desire to discontinue the said Insurance Policy and also prayed for refund of the money of the premium paid by her. The Complainant also issued a legal notice dated 21/05/2019 to the O.Ps. but the O.Ps. did not pay any hid towards her petition. It is also mentioned that the Complainant paid 5 consecutive premiums continuously totaling Rs.98,934/- only. Now she is seeking the refund of her premium money along with interest and compensation. 

Hence, the Complainant filed her complaint. 

 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

        In their written statements the O.Ps. stated that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. It is also stated that as per terms and conditions of the Policy the Complainant is not entitled to get any refund. The Complainant sent a legal notice which was accordingly replied intimating the Complainant through her counsel that the policy was issued as per terms and conditions and in the said Policy contract it was specifically mentioned that in case the Policy holder is not satisfied with the Policy contract he/she should return the same within the Free-Look Period. 

 

           It is also mentioned that the O.Ps. have not received any free look cancellation from the Complainant. The O.P. Company assured that the provisions are in accordance with the IRDA regulations. The Complainant failed to pay renewal premium after receiving notice. Thereafter, the O.P. also sent a notice to the Complainant in regard to the lapse of the policy. The Complainant also failed to elect an option available under non-forfeiture provisions. Thereafter, all Policy benefit stands forfeited within 90 days after the due date of the premium in default. Further the Complainant neither surrendered nor restored her policy nor submitted any letter to that effect. At last, the O.P. in their written statements mentioned that  the Complainant has failed to make out a primafacy case against the O.Ps.  In any event the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined under CP Act. 1986. 

 

        So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.                                                                                 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 7 documents comprising 16 sheets under a Firisti dated 25/07/2019. The documents are namely copy of letter from Managing Director, Copy of policy information page, Copy of first premium receipt, Copy of renewal premium, Copy of Advocate Notice dated 21/05/2019 by speed post, Copy of Track Consignment Report & Copy of Aadhar Card. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps. side.

 

    On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Sujoy Kumar Saha, Works as Branch Operation-In-Charge, TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. was examined. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. The said witness has produced 3 documents comprising 19 sheets under a Firisti dated 19/11/2020. The documents are namely Application Form, Renewal premium notice dated 03/10/2017 & 01/10/2018 and APL dated 01/12/2017 & 01/12/2018. On identification the documents have been  marked  as Exhibit A Series. 

 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

   

 

        We have heard arguments of both sides. 

        Learned Advocate Mr. Joydeep Paul for the Complainant argued that the husband of the Complainant died in harness while in service in the BSF, 2nd Battalion in the year, 2011. After her husband's death, her eldest son was appointed by the Commandant, 20 Battalion, BSF, they also got admissible benefit as per law from the BSF. With such financial benefits, the Complainant took a Life Insurance Policy from the TATA AIE Life Insurance Company Ltd. and the Complainant paid the 1st premium totaling Rs.20,000/- on 31st October, 2012. Due to sufferings from various ailments the Complainant's son was compelled to resign from the service and as such the family fell into ocean of miseries due to financial constraints. In such a position the Complainant discontinued her policy and sent an Advocate notice for refund of premium amount. But O.P. did not refund. It is submitted by Mr. Paul that the Petitioner is entitled to get the total amount of premium along with interest and also the compensation for mental agony, tension, harassment and unfair trade practices. Learned Advocate Mr. Pal relied upon some decisions of the Apex Court.                           

 

6.     On the other hand Learned Advocate Mr. Sampad Choudhury submitted that as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy the complaint does not fall within the definition of a “consumer dispute” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is also no unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. nor any deficiency in service. So complaint is liable to be rejected. 

           Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the Complainant opted for a policy of 20 years security and growth plus plan. The proposal Form were explained to the Complainant and she has given a declaration stating that the contents of the applications was read over and explained to her. Admittedly, the Complainant has not lodged any grievance during the free look period. It is also submitted that the Complainant has failed to pay the renewal premium and for which as per terms of the policy  O.P. sent renewal premium notice. Since, the Complainant has not taken any efforts to pay the renewal premium and that as per terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance, if the policy holder fails to pay the premium after grace period, then Policy holder required to elect an option from non-forfeiture provisions available in policy contract, however complainant failed to elect an option available under non-forfeiture provisions and as a result the same  moved to “Automatic Premium Loan and all Policy benefits stands forfeited. Further the Complainant neither surrendered nor restored her Policy nor submitted any letter to that effect. 

 

         Mr. Choudhury in support of his submission relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 286 Polymat India P. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another decision reported in (2010) 1 SCC 83 “Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel”. Ultimately he submitted that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.        

                                                     

9. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

      We have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidences of both sides. On perusal of the same we found that there is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant made only 5 premiums. It is also admitted that the date of 1st premium was 31/10/2012 and subsequently it was discontinued after making payment of total 5 premiums. From the documents of Exhibit-I series we find that the Complainant issued a legal notice for refund of her principal amount of Rs.98,934/- and she informed that she was unable to continue the Policy. From the Advocate notice dated 21/05/2019 it is found that the Complainant claimed her principal amount by giving Advocate notice in the year 2019. We do not find any other documents submitted by the Complainant in respect of surrendering the Policy as per prescribed Format of the Insurance Company. From the evidence of the O.P. side, we find that one Sri Sujay Kr. Saha working as Branch Operation-In-Charge, Agartala submitted his examination-in-chief on Affidavit and he stated that the Complainant after making 5 annual premium failed to pay the renewal premium and as per terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance, if the Policy holder fails to pay the premium then, the same is moved to “reduce paid up process” and the O.P. Insurance Company also sent a auto surrender letter, informing the Complainant that the policy had moved to reduce paid up option. Further, the Complainant neither surrendered nor restored her policy nor submitted any letter to that effect. He also stated that if any one fails to pay the premium within the grace period, thereafter policy has required a cash value. She may elect one of the following non-forfeiture option by writing within 90 days from the due date of the premium in default.  

 

8. We have considered the submissions of both sides as well as the evidences adduced by them and also all the citations referred by the Counsels and we find as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the complaint is not maintainable. We also hold that there is no deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Since the complaint is devoid of merit it is liable to be dismissed without any cost. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties  free of cost. 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA