DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 50 of 2019

 

Sri Pranab Das,

S/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 Sri Pranab 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 Father of the Complainant died in harness while in service in the BSF, 2nd Battalion in the year, 2011. After his father's death, the Complainant being the son of the deceased employee 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. and the Complainant paid the 1st premium totaling Rs.25,029/- on 25th March, 2012. After joining of service the Complainant started sufferings from various ailments and due to his deteriorated health condition he resigned from his service and as such he fell into ocean of misery due to financial constraints. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a petition before the appropriate authority expressing his desire to discontinue the said Insurance Policy and also prayed for refund of the money of the premium paid by him. The Complainant also issued a legal notice to the O.Ps. but the O.Ps. did not pay any hid towards his petition. It is also mentioned that the Complainant paid 3 consecutive premiums continuously totaling Rs.75,147/- only. Now he is seeking the refund of his premium money along with interest and compensation. 

Hence, the Complainant filed his 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 for the first time send a grievance letter to the O.P. which was received by the O.P. on 10/01/2017 i.e. after a lapse of more than 5 years from the date of issuance of policy. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a legal notice which was accordingly replied intimating the Complainant through his 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.P. 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 for which renewal premium notice dated 23/02/2015 was sent. Thereafter, the O.P. sent a notice dated 25/04/2015 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 on 03/01/2016. Further the Complainant neither surrenders nor restore his 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 himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 8 documents comprising 14 sheets under a Firisti dated 24/07/2019. 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 letter dated 10/01/2017 by Pranab Das, Copy of Advocate Notice dated 21/05/2019 by speed post, Copy of Track Consignment Report & Copy of Voter Identity 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 4 documents comprising 22 sheets under a Firisti dated 19/11/2020. The documents are namely Renewal premium notice dated 23/02/2015 & Auto surrender notice dated 09/05/2015. 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.Ps. 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 father of the Complainant died in harness while in service in the BSF, 2nd Battalion in the year, 2011. After his father's death, the Complainant being the son of the deceased employee 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.25,029/- on 25th March, 2012. Due to sufferings from various ailments the Complainant 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 filed a petition before the appropriate authority expressing his desire to discontinue the said Insurance Policy and also prayed for refund of the money deposited by the Complainant in the form of premium. But the authority did not feel it necessary at all to give reply to the petition. Thereafter the Complainant issued a legal notice. 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.Ps. 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 he has given a declaration stating that the contents of the applications was read over and explained to him. Admittedly, the Complainant has not lodged any grievance during the free look period. It is also submitted that for the 1st time the Complainant send a grievance letter to the O.P. which was received by the O.P. on 10/01/2017 i.e. after a lapse of more than 5 years from the date of the Insurance Policy. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P. which was actually no legal effect. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that after making 3 annual premium the Complainant failed to pay the renewal premium and for which as per terms of the policy of the O.P. sent renewal premium notice dated 23/02/2015 to pay the outstanding premium. Since, the Complainant has not taken any efforts to pay the renewal premium, the O.P. sent a lapsed notice dated 25/04/2015 to the Complainant 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 requires to elect an option from non-forfeiture provisions available in policy contract. But in the instant case complainant failed to elect an option available under non-forfeiture provisions and on a result the same  moved to “Automatic Premium Loan and O.P. Insurance Company  sent an auto surrender letter dated 09/05/2015 informing the complainant that the available cash value is insufficient to cover the modal premium and after 03/01/2016 all Policy benefits stands forfeited. Further the Complainant neither surrendered nor restored his 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.                                         

7. 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 3 premiums. It is also admitted that the date of 1st premium was 15/03/2012 and subsequently it was discontinued after making payment of total 3 premiums. From the documents of Exhibit-I series we find that the Complainant issued a letter dated 10/01/2017 for refund of his principal amount of Rs.75,147/- and he informed that he was unable to continue the Policy. From the Advocate notice dated 21/05/2019 it is found that the Complainant claimed his 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 at Para-7,8&9 of his Affidavit he stated that the Complainant after making 3 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 sent a auto surrender letter dated 09/05/2015 informing the Complainant that the policy had moved to reduce paid up option. Further, the Complainant neither surrendered nor restored his 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. He 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