Order by:

Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that complainant availed insurance policy 03331857 having client Id No. 58557245 and deposited Rs.39991/- on 05.11.2015. After that the complainant also deposited three installments with the opposite party no. 2 i.e. first installment of Rs.10234/-on 14.10.2016, second installment of Rs.10400/- on 27.04.2017 and third installment of Rs.20515/- on 8.3.2018. At the time of issuing the policy, the agent of the opposite party clearly assured the complainant that the complainant can withdraw the above said policy at any time and the amount already deposited by the complainant will be refunded along with interest by the opposite party without any hindrance. After depositing the third installment that complainant gone to America and due to this reason complainant could not deposited the remaining installments of the above said insurance policy with the opposite parties, when he came back to India in the month of March, 2021, he visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to release the amount already deposited by the him in lieu of the above said Insurance Policy, but the opposite parties failed to release the amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to release the amount of Rs.81,140/- alongwith interest to the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment suffered by the complainant.

c)       And to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and is gross misuse and abuse of process of law and facts; the complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party’s Company; the present complaint does not disclose any "Consumer Disputes" as defined under Section 2 (8) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019; the present complaint is time barred as he has filed the present complaint in the year 2022 after about 6 years from the date of arising of cause of action; all material allegations are on the agent, but the complaint failed to make him a party to the case; the present complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party’s Company. The complainant is not entitled for refund of the premium paid under the subject policy along with compensation or any other relief, as claimed. Averred that the policy is a contract and the terms & conditions mentioned in the policy contract are binding on both the parties. The terms & conditions of the subject policy disentitles the complainant to seek refund of the premium paid under the subject policy. Averred further that by the perusal of the contents of the complaint it could be ascertained that the complainant has neither explained the delay caused in filing of the complaint before this Commission nor he has field any separate application for the condonation of the delay along with the complaint before this Commission as such the present complaint is able to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation as being time barred. Averred that Kulwant Singh Dhaliwal after understanding that it was life insurance policy, submitted the duly filled and signed proposal form dated 28.10.2015 The Complainant had voluntarily agreed to the benefit, charges, terms & conditions and risk factors of the proposed Plan, at the time of submitting the proposal form. Further as per the clause no.3 of the proposal form, the complainant had voluntarily opted for a policy term of 10 years with premium payment term of 10 years. Further alleged that while applying for the subject policy, the complainant had submitted duly signed declaration. On the basis of information, statement and declaration made in the above proposal form dated 28.10.2015 and considering the same to be true and correct in all aspect, the Opposite Party Company had issued a policy in the life of the Complainant. The Opposite Party Company in accordance with the then clause 4.1 and 6.2 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2002, superseded by clause 8.1 and 10.1 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2017 had dispatched to the Complainant at his registered mail address the policy document along with copy of the proposal form on 06.11.2015 through Speed Post Via waybill no ED867683555IN and the same was delivered and received by the complainant on 13.11.2015. Said policy document clearly mentions that in case the Policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he/she can review/withdraw/return/alter the details of the policy within 15 days i.e. under the "Free Look period" provision. The provision of Free Look was also explicitly stated in Clause 15 in the Policy Document. In the welcome letter dated 16.02.2015 under which the above policy document were sent clearly mentioning the free look period. Despite receipt of policy & policy documents by the complainant, the Opposite Party Company had neither received any request for Free look cancellation nor any grievance concerning the subject policy within the free look period from the complainant. Hence, the policy contract became binding on the Complainant. Averred further that under the subject policy, the Opposite Party Company had received the initial subscription premium installment of Rs.39,991.00/-. Then on 14.10.2016, the Complainant had given the request for change of frequency of premium with Yearly to quarterly and paid the premium of Rs.10234/- for period Nov, 2016 to Jan, 2017, but he failed to pay premium in Feb 2016 and again he paid the premium of Rs.10400/- (with charges) in April 2017 for the period Nov 2016 to Jan 2017. Then again he paid the premium of Rs.20400/- on Oct 2017, Feb 2017 to Oct 2017. Then again he paid premium in March in 2018 for period Nov 2017 to April 2018. (Total he has paid premium for two years and six months only). Then he failed to pay the renewal premium due on May 2018 to July 2018 and so on. Thus the subject policy due to non receipt of renewal premium moved into lapse mode and then the subject policy has been forfeited/terminated after the end of revival period. No written complaint or legal notice is received by the company till date. From the above facts & submissions it is stated that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Company and the complaint is devoid of merit. In parawise reply all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

4.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.OP1 & 2/1 to Ex.OP1 & 2/5 and affidavit of Sh.Charu Gandhi, Chief Manager-Legal, Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ex.OP1 & 2/6.

5.       We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

6.       From the perusal of the record we observed that complainant purchased insurance policy bearing no.03331857 on 05.11.2015 for a term of 10 years. Payment mode annually and deposited Rs.39,991/- with Opposite Parties as First Premium Ex.C4. On 14.10.2016 the complainant has given the request for change of frequency of premium from yearly to quarterly vide Ex.OPs1 & 2/5 and started paying premium quarterly. Perusal of the record reveals that complainant deposited premium of Rs.10,234/- vide receipt dated 14.10.2016 Ex.C5, Rs.10,400/-, vide receipt dated 27.04.2017 Ex.C6 and Rs.20,515/- vide receipt dated 08.03.2018 Ex.C7. Thereafter, he failed to deposit further premiums. The deposit of aforesaid amount is also not denied by the Opposite Parties. Now, vide this complaint, the complainant is claiming for the refund of the amount so deposited by him. On this, the only plea taken by the Opposite Parties is that the policy in question was in lapse mode due to non-receipt of renewal premium, so the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the amount as claimed. No doubt policy in question was in lapse mode due to non payment of premium. However, in these circumstances, we are of the concerted view that ends of justice would be fully met if the Opposite Parties be directed to make the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant after deducting the service tax.

7.       In view of the discussion above, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed to make refund of the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.81,140/- (Rupees Eighty One Thousand One Hundred Forty only) after deducting service tax. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties are burdened with additional cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to complainant for non compliance of the order.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in Open Commission.