Orissa

Rayagada

CC/100/2019

Sayed zianul Haque - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer, Biral Sunlife Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.      100      / 2019.                                     Date.    24   . 2. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sayed  Zianul Haque, At:Raniguda Farm,  Po/Dist: Rayagada,  State:  Odisha,    Pin No. 765 001.   Cell   No.8249335994.

                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

 

The   Chief Executive Officer,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited

Registered Office: One Indiabulls Centre Tower 1,

16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, SenapatiBapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013                           … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

.For the O.Ps 1 to 3 :- Sri  J.K..Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

 

JUDGEMENT

1.The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of deposited amount in the  insurance policy No. No.005971623   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The  brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

2. That It is submitted that the O.Ps authorized agent  of the  O.P. came to the  resident of the complainant  and contacted with  him  for opening of one policy in   Birla Sun life insurance vision plan.   For  depositing the  amount the complainant   had  deposited  premium  a  sum of Rs.6,531.78 under Birla Sun life insurance vision plan on Dt, 18^th . February, 2013. In  turn  the O.P. had  issued document in favour of the complainant  vide  policy  No.005971623  on Dt. 20th.  February, 2013.  That  at the time of  proposal form sign the complainant was asked  by the agent  of the O.Ps to  sign on the doted lines without explaining  the benefits of the  scheme and  the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing.  The complainant was asked  to pay one time premium of Rs.  Rs.6,531.78 by the  agent  of the O.P.  After receipt of the policy bond  the complainant  had  known   unfair  deal  made  with the complainant by the O.P introduced   scheme  by engaging    the  agent.  Now the complainant is not in a position to continue the same  policy  in the  above company. So she  requested  the O.Ps  to return the  deposited amount with interest. But  till  date the complainant  has not received any response from the O.Ps. Hence this complaint  petition before the District    commission  to  get  redressal  of  the grievance. The  complainant  prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps  to pay the deposited amount  along with accrued interest.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.  . Hence the O.Ps 3    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

 Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from  the complainant..    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties.

This District Commission examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was policy holder  under the O.P  BSLI visition plan bearing  policy  No.005971623  on Dt. 20th.  February, 2013 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/-  which was issued in favour of the complainant with annual premium amount a sum of Rs. Rs.6,531.78.  The aforesaid policy was issued  to the complainant  in his address on Dt. 20.2.2013  basing on duly signed application form by the complainant   being a premium paying term of 18 years and policy term to age  100..  Copies of the application, General amendment form, sales illustration form  & policy contract annexed collectively is in the file   marked  as Annexure-I.

The O.Ps in their written version clearly mentioned  that the application contained a clause of free look period vesting a right on the policy holder to cancel and obtain a refund of premium paid by giving a notice duly signed by the proposer  and directly received by the company within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. In the present case the complainant has not availed the above  free look period in due time. 

          Further  the O.Ps in their written version  contended   that the  O.Ps did not received any information from the complainant towards non-receipt of policy document. The complainant also did not make any notice for cancellation of the policy  within free look period and return the premium.

          Again  the O.Ps in their written version contended   that the  premium payment notices dtd. 1.2.2014  was duly sent to the complainant to deposit the premium but the complainant  did not  deposit the  premium within the grace period for which the above policy was  lapsed. Copies of such notice are in the file marked as Annexure-2  . The complainant inspite of such notices did not pay the premium for which the policy lapsed being auto surrendered. 

          The O.Ps in their written version contended   that the  complainant had not make any application for revival of the policy rather filed the present case with false and afterthought pleas.

          The O.Ps in their written version  contended   that the present case is filed much after the period of limitation of two years on the date of alleged cause of action i.e.  Dt.18.2.2014 on which date the policy lapsed, and the complaint having been filed on Dt.17.10.2019 was filed more than two years  after accrual of the cause of action and therefore, is liable  to be dismissed  on this ground  alone. Section-24 A of the C.P.Act, which prescribes the period of limitation for admitting  a complaint, reads as under.

       We perused the complaint petition and written version  filed by both the parties  and on perusal of documents it reveals  that the cause of action arose in the present case   on  Dt.18.2.2014but the  complainant has filed the above case before  the forum  Dt.17.10.2019 after two years   which is a time barred complaint and this forum can not adjudicate this complaint. 

            “Section 24 A  Limitation period  of the Consumer Protection Act : 

 

                (l) The District Forum, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years                from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

            Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”                                               

            It is held and reported in  2005(iv) CPJ-1 (S.C) in  the  case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vrs. B.K.Sood where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to the provisions of Section-24A of the C.:P.Act,1986 inter-alia observed as under in para-11

            “The Section debars any  Fourm set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen”.

            Again it is held and reported  in 2009(II) CPJ-29 SC  in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. B.S.Agricultural Industries where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the provision of Section 24-A of the C.P.Act, 1986 inter-alia observed and held as under in para -8

            “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that is peremptory in nature  and requires  Consumer forum to see before  it admits the complaint that it has been filed  within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reason to be recorded in  writing may condone the delay in  filing  the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section-24A is sort of  a legislative command to be Consumer Forum   to examine  on its own whether the complaint  has been filed with in limitation period prescribed  thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the  complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause  of action and if beyond  the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the  reasons recorded in writing.  In other words,  it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section -24A and give  effect  to it.  If the complaint is barred  by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides  the  complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality  and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to  have   such order set aside”.

            Further it is held  reported  in  2010(iv) CPJ-27  in  the case   of V.N.Shrikhande(Dr.)  Vrs.  Anita  SenaFernandes,  where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that Section 24 A (1) contains a negative legislative  mandate against admission of a complaint which has been  filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It was further  observed  that the Consumer Forum do not  have the jurisdiction   to entertain a complaint  if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  The Apex Court  held   that if the complaint is per se barred  by time  and the complainant  does not seek condonation of delay under Sub-Section – 24  A (2), the consumer forums will have  no option but to  dismiss the same”.

            The provision of Section -24  A  of the Act being mandatory and rather  peremptory in nature,  this forum  has no  jurisdiction to entertain  a complaint after expiry of the prescribed    period of limitation, unless the complainant filed  an appropriate application  under  Sub-Section (2) of the said section and satisfies it that he/she  had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint   within the prescribed  period of two years  from the date on which   the cause of action had arisen. 

However, despite the O.Ps having   taken a  specific  preliminary objection  that the complaint  was barred by limitation, the complainants did not choose  to file an application  under section  (2) of Section  24 A seeking  condo nation of delay   in filing  the complaint.  Further the  complainant has not been able to give any  cogent and convincing reason for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation.

Hence, in view of the Section-24  A of the C.P.Act,1986 the  complaint petition filed by the complainant is dismissed. This forum   do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

The  O.Ps.    has relied citations which  are mentioned here:-

          The O.P.    has  relied judgement it is held in R.P. No. 2870/2012  in the case of Mohan LalBenalVrs. ICICI prudential life insurance Co. Ltd.  decided on 16.10.2012 and Harish Kumar Chadha Vrs.  Bajaj Allianz life insurance Co. Ltd(Decided on 7.10.2013 in  R.P. No. 3271 of 2013 where in the  hon’ble National  Commissioner observed  “That if the insured/complainant is not satisfied with the policy taken, then he/she should avail the option of returning the policy within  15 days  of receipt i.e. within  “the Free-look period”. The said proposition has also been clearly laid down in the case of  ShrikantMurlidharApteVrs. Life Insurance Corporation of India in R.P. No.  634 of 2012, decided  on  2.5.2013.   Further the National commission concurred with the findings of Maharashtra State C.D.R.Commission,Mumbai that “Once 15 days ‘cooling off’ period  is  over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them”.  Thus in concurrence with the proposition settled in the catena of cases, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground.

                Again It is held and reported  in CPJ 2008(4) page No.156 the hon’ble  National Commission where in observed  at para-5 “The premium is given by  an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which the  premium has been paid.  it is  not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given.  If after the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of policy or law, could any for a  direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period for which premium had been paid”.

Further the O.Ps relied  citation in their written version.  It is held and reported  in CPJ 2006 (Iv) 239  in the case of  Prema&orsvrs. Life insurance Corporation of India  the  Hon’ble  National Commission, New  Delhi where in observed  “The O.Ps  do  not authorize  the agents to source policies based on  any allurements or false assurances and the O.Ps have acted as per the terms    and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted    that the IRDA has administrative  control over the agents and that the O.Ps do not authorize the agents to source policies based on any allurements of false assurances. Any act of the agent  can not be fastened on the O.Ps and they can not be held  liable for the act and omissions of the agent”.

Again  the O.Ps  relied  citation in their written version, it is held and reported in  CPJ 2003(1) 393 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vrs. HarchandRaiChandanial  and in the case of VikramGreentech(I) Ltd. &Anr. Vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd-II 2009(2)  CPJ-34 where in the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed “ An insurance policy  is to  be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is a binding  contract between the parties and nothing can be added  or subtracted  giving a  different meaning to the words   mentioned therein”.

           

                This forum  completely agreed with views taken in written version inter alia   the documents

Filed  by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any 

relief  from this District commission and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this          24th.   Day of   February,  2021.

 

 

.                                               Member.                                                             President