Haryana

Karnal

CC/89/2021

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Exide Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Gulia

22 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 89 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.11.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:22.05.2024

 

Suresh Kumar son of Shri Jai Parkash Gupta, resident of house no.627, Jundla Gate, near Lal Kuaan, ward no.11, Karnal, tehsil and District Karnal. Aged about 60 years, mobile no.89505-56557.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.., 3^rd floor, Techno Park no.3/1, Millers Road, Bangaluru-56001, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2. Shri Sanjay Garg, Development Officer, The Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Bangaluru, above Yest Bank Building, Sanjay Chowk, Panipat, District Panipat, now at the Exide Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Ambala Branch, 2^nd floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt, above Big Bazaar, Ambala, District Ambala, Haryana-133001.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Ajay Gulia, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 given up.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 12.09.2018, complainant purchased a life insurance policy from the OPs and paid Rs.one lakh as first installment. The next installment was to be paid on 12.09.2019 but in the meanwhile complainant felt uneasy to pay the installments and therefore, complainant had contacted the OP no.2 regarding his insurance policy bearing no.03853232, then the OP no.2 had told to complainant that if he would pay the second installment then and only the total amount paid by the complainant would be returned, otherwise nothing would be paid back to the complainant and thus on the assurance of OP no.2, the complainant has paid the second installment of Rs.97850/- to the OP no.1. OP no.2 Sanjay Garg had also assured in writing as follows:-

“Pay Two years and get Sixty Percent after one year and policy will be considered for Ten Years according to Forty Percent.”

 

The said writing dated 27.09.2019 was signed by the OP no.2. But the OP no.1 now has not paid sixty percent of the deposited amount and only Rs.64669/- has been paid to the complainant. The complainant has been regularly contacting the OPs for getting total sixty percent amount as per writing dated 27.09.2019 but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.11.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP had received a duly filed proposal form on 12.09.2018 from the complainant for issuance of the subject policy. OP had explained the standard terms and conditions of and key feature of the policy to the complainant. After understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant filled the proposal form and signed the same. The details of the policy are as under:-

Policy no.	03853232
Policy Name	Exide Life Star Saver
Proposal date	12.09.2018
Date of risk Commencement	12.09.2018
Premium payment schedule	Annual
Premium Payment term	5 years
Policy Term	10 years
Policy Status	Lapse

 It is further pleaded that complainant failed to approached the OPs within freelook period. Since no such request was received by the OP within freelook period, the policy continued as per terms and conditions. The complainant was required to pay the renewal premium annually for a period of five years. After paying two annual premiums the complainant, vide application dated 24.09.2020 applied for loan under the policy. Since the policy acquired surrender value the said loan request of the complainant was sanctioned and the loan amount of Rs.64,669/- was paid to the complainant on 01.10.2020. The third  annual premium under the policy fell due on 12.09.2020 which has not been paid by the complainant therefore, the policy lapse. The complainant still has an option to revive the policy within two years from the date of first unpaid premium by paying all the due premiums.  It is further pleaded that neither the company nor the terms of the policy assures that the complainant is entitled for refund of the 60% of the premium paid after two year as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by learned counsel for the complainant, by suffering the statement dated  22.07.2022 being unnecessary party.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of premium receipts dated 12.09.2018 and 28.09.2019 Ex.C1 and Ex.C3, copy of Commitment dated 27.09.2019 of OP no.2 Ex.C2, copy of bank statement Ex.C4, copy of legal notice and postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 28.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Chidanand P. Deputy General Manager-Legal Ex.OPW1/A, copy of proposal form Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 18.09.2018 Ex.OP2, copy of loan application Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 23.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Both parties have submitted their written arguments.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a life insurance policy from the OP and mode of payment was annual. Complainant paid two installments to the OP. At the time of depositing of second installment, OP no.2 Sanjay Garg also assured and gave in writing that he will be entitled sixty percent of the deposited amount after paying the two installments but after paying two installments, only Rs.64669/- has been paid. The complainant has been regularly contacting the OP for getting total sixty percent  of deposited amount but OP did not pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant failed to approached the OP within freelook period of fiftee days. Since no such request was received by the OP within freelook period, the policy continued as per terms and conditions. On 24.09.2020, complainant applied for loan under the policy, the said loan was sanctioned and the loan amount of Rs.64,669/- was paid to the complainant on 01.10.2020. The third annual premium was due on 12.09.2020 which was not paid by the complainant, now the policy is in lapse condition. The OP never assured the complainant, he is entitled for refund of the 60% of the premium paid after one year as alleged by him. The complainant has enjoyed the benefits under the said policy for the first two years, so he is not entitled for refund of the premium paid under the said life insurance policy, which is utilized by the OP company for covering the risk on life of complainant/policyholder for a period of two years and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant purchased a Excide Life Saver Policy from the OP and the sum insured under the policy was Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also admitted that the mode of payment was annual and  was to be paid only five years and policy term was ten years. It is also admitted that only two premiums were deposited by the complainant. It is also admitted that complainant has already received Rs.64,669/-.

12.           The complainant has alleged that OP no.2 had assured the complainant if he would pay the second installment then only 60% of deposit amount would be refunded and in this regard OP no.2 had issued assurance letter Ex.C2. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence. The complainant alleged that said assurance was issued by the OP no.2 but during the pendency of the complaint, complainant himself given up the OP no.2 being unnecessary party, the reasons best known to him. OP no.1 has denied the said assurance, thus the said writing goes unproved and it appears that OPs had not issued the alleged writing.

13.           As per the policy, the premium was to be paid annually upto five years but complainant has paid only two premiums. The next premium was due in September, 2020 and complainant has not paid the due premium. Now the policy in question is in lapse mode for non-payment of the premium amount.

14.           The complainant enjoyed the benefits under the said policy for the first two years and OP has covered the risk on the life of complainant for that period. Complainant himself failed to deposit the next premium amount. Thus, in view of the above, complainant is not entitled for claimed amount.

15.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.05.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh)

                      Member                              Member