Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/101/2020

Rakesh Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The ICICI Prudential, Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/101/2020
Date of Institution	:	25.2.2020
Date of Decision	:	7/2/2024

 

1. Rakesh Kumar Goyal (since deceased)

 

2. Kiran Goyal wife of deceased Rakesh Kumar Goyal

 

3. Akash Goyal son of deceased Rakesh Kumar Goyal

 

4. Alisha Goyal daughter of deceased Rakesh Kumar Goyal, All are residents of House No. 171, Sector-7, District Panchkula Haryana.

Complainants

 

Versus

 

 

The ICICI Prudential, Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.134-135-136, Sector-8C, Chandigarh, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

Registered Office at:

 

ICICI PruLife Towers, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe March, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory

....Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

 

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for OP.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant allured with the rosy picture shown by the OP that in case of investment of money by the complainant  the same will be invested in govt. sector and he will have to pay single premium, the complainant invested his hard earned money by paying Rs.1,99,938/-  on 31.3.2011. However, after sometime when enquired about the status of his investment it transpired that the amount invested by the complainant in the scheme floated by the OP instead of increasing, the policy has been lapsed without value because the policy in question were not single premium policies but regular etc. The complainant found that he has been completely ditched and cheated by the OP, who had made false promises and assurances and further that they insured the complainant by misrepresentation Actual terms and conditions were never brought to the knowledge of the complainant. After the investment made by the complainant on 31.03.2011, the complainant did not receive any letter of demand for above-mentioned seven years period nor the status of the same was ever informed by the OP. The OP never informed the complainant through SMS on his mobile phone or through email or whatsapp regarding any information related to policy including risk commencement date, sum insured, premium assured, premium payment frequency, free look period or regarding procedure for reviving the lapsed policy etc. Thus the aforesaid act of OP is deficient in rendering  proper services and have totally indulged in unfair trade practices. When the  grievance of the complainant was not redressed a legal notice dated 7.11.2019 was sent but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite  Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complaint is barred by time as  the policy in question was issued in the year 2011 and foreclosed in the year 2014 but the complainant slept over the matter. Thus the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was supplied all the terms and conditions of the policy, however, he has  not approached for cancellation of the policy during the Free Look Period thereby implying that he had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy, thus the subject policy continued as per its applicable terms and conditions. It is alleged that that the Complainant is not a new client to the Company, the Complainant had bought a policy from the Company on 27.04.2005, which was before the issuance of the subject policy and the same was withdrawn by the Complainant by availing the Freelook option. Once the complainant waives his right to freelook cancellation, it is implied that all the terms & conditions of the policy are in conformity and he is agreeable to them. The answering OP has  only acted as per the terms and conditions to which it is bound, as per clause 3(v) the company is not obligated to remind the Customer of the premium due dates and as far the question of intimating the foreclosure of the policy is concerned the answering respondents had duly sent an intimation letter as evidenced above. Moreover, all the products of the answering OP are approved by IRDAI, therefore the answering respondents stands on the side of the law for adhering to the said terms and conditions. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The main  grievance of the complainants No.2&3 is that  the policy held by the complainant No.1 (since deceased) was declared as  lapsed and nothing was refunded to them.
7. On perusal of Annexure C-1 Copy of application form it is observed that the complainant No.1 (since deceased) had applied  for a policy with a premium payment Term of 7 years which has a coverage Term of 15 years. The premium payable  was Rs.2,00,000/- on yearly basis. The sum assured benefit was for Rs.13,85,300/-. The said proposal form was duly signed by the complainant No.1 (since deceased) on 31/03/2011 as can be seen  from Annexure C-1 at page 22 of the complaint.
8. In accordance with the proposal form, the complainant No.1 (since deceased)  was issued a policy Annexure C-1 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the policy term is of 15 years with a premium policy term of 7 years. Due Date for the last premium is above mentioned as 07/04/2017.
9. From all above it is very clear that it was  the complainant  No.1 (since deceased) who had applied for the said policy  and duly signed in the proposal form and accordingly  he was issued such a policy.
10. After going through the evidence on record, we are of the view that due to non-payment of further premium the policy in questoin had lapsed. Moreover, the policy in question was issued in the year 2011 and foreclosed in the year 2014 but the complainants did not raise any dispute within two years from that date and slept over the matter and the complainant at the most could have filed the complaint in the year 2016 but he filed the instant complaint only on 25.2.2020 i.e. much beyond the period as stipulated in the Act. Thus, the complaint is barred by time.
11. So far as the legal notice sent by the complainants to the OPs on 7.11.2019, is concerned, it is opined that the mere sending of legal notice, writing of letters or exchange of correspondence between the parties, would not, in any way, extend the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-

^{“69(1).Limitation period. –}

^{(1)     The District Forum, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”}

 

12.  Therefore, in view of the above Section of the Consumer Protection Act, the present complaint is clearly barred by limitation, hence not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
7/2/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member