Orissa

Rayagada

CC/456/2015

Phulamati Jodia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 456/ 2015.                                        Date.    5  .    11    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Phulamani Jhodia, Bagri Jholla, Kucheipadar, Kashipur,      DIST: Rayagada, State:  Odisha,  .

                                                                                                            ……Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager,  Bajaj Allianz life insurance company Ltd., Rayagada.

 

2.The General Manager, Bajaj Allinz, Life Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,Pune.

                                                                                                            …Opposite parties.           

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.Ps:- SriV. Avatar, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT.

 

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of Rs.30,000/- towards policy No. 0040964970 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.Ps filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps   deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps.  prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

 

The O.Ps   appeared and defend the case.  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 forum  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 a policy holder bearing No. 0040964970 opted for unit linked policy namely product capital unit Gain which was commenced from Dt.28.2.2007..   Further  there is no disputes the  above  policy  term and premium payment term   is 20 years.   Again  there is no dispute the complainant had  paid total amount a sum Rs. 30,000/- towards  01  No.  yearly  premium  @ Rs. 30,000/- each premium. (copies of the policy bond  is in the file marked as  Annexure-I ). Further  the above policy   sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/-  which was issued in favour of the complainant with annual premium amount a sum of Rs.30,000/-.  The aforesaid policy was issued  to the complainant  in her address on Dt. 07.03.2007  basing on duly signed application form by the complainant  Dt. 28.2.2007   being a premium paying term of 20 years and policy term of 20 years.

 

The O.Ps in their written version contended that   the complainant was required to pay the yearly premiums @ Rs. 30,000/- for premium paying term of 20 years but he did not pay the yearly regular premiums due falls  on Dt.28.02.2008 and onwards. The policy stands surrendered strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions  of the policy. The complainant  has also enjoyed the risk cover for a period of 1 year from commencement of the policy i.e. on Dt.28.2.2007  till  28.2.2008.

 The main grievance of the complainant is that  he had deposited  1  No. of annual premium  on Dt.28.2.2007  total amount a sum of Rs.30,000/-.The complainant has  submitted  in her  petition that   the O.Ps assured the complainant after depositing one premium she will  get a maturity value of Rs.3 Lakhs.. When the O.Ps  have not disbursed the above assured   she filed C.C. petition before the forum to get the above amount.

          Again the O.Ps have  argued  that the allegation of the complainant regarding to get the maturity amount  a sum of Rs.3 lakhs  on completion of some years   from the O.Ps are  groundless and against the policy terms and  conditions,.

             Afore-mentioned facts establish  that nothing  is either  due or legally recoverable by the complainant from the O.Ps and O.Ps have duly complied with the terms and conditions of the policy  contract.  In the ligjht of above facts and contract no cause of action ever arose against  the O.Ps as the present  complaint does not  raise any “Consumer Dispute” and there is no deficiency  on the part of the O.Ps.  The  complainant  has neither a legal  basis nor a  valid cause of action  against the O.Ps to file the present complaint before the  forum. Hence this forum has not  warranted to interfere in to  the present complaint. That the modus operandi of the O.Ps  is different from any insurance sectors and it earnestly follows the rules and  regulations passed by the IRDA and further  functions of its business are carried in accordance with the settled principles of law.  The grievances of the complaint is unworthy of credence.

 

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 complainant in his  complaint petition   argued  that the O.Ps. was not given any  policy bonds to the complainant and the agent who has received the policy bonds  has intentionally kept the same with him and deprived his valuable right  to go through the policy conditions and as per his suggestion the  1 No. of premium was paid. To reply  the above argument the  O.Ps in their written version  clearly mentioned  that the application and the policy papers were received by the complainant  from the O.Ps  through  postal  service..  From the above  discussion it is clear that the complainant was actually  received  policy bond from the O.Ps through postal service.

          Again 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  correspondence with the O.Ps  for cancellation of the policy  within free look period and return the premium.

          Further  The O.Ps in their written  version  contended   that the  premium payment notices was duly sent to the complainant to deposit the premium by 28.2.2008 but the complainant  did not  deposit the  premium within the grace period for which the lapse notice  was sent to the complainant.. The complainant inspite of such notices did not pay the premium for which the policy lapsed being auto surrendered. 

          The O.Ps in their preliminary objections contended   that the  complainant has 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.28.2.2008 on which date the policy lapsed, and the complaint having been filed on  Dt.  06.01.2015 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,1986 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.28.2.2008 but the  complainant has filed the above case before  the forum  06.01.2015 after two years   which is a time barred complaint and this forum can not adjudicate this complaint. 

The provision of Section -24  A  of the C.P. Act, 1986  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.

In this context the O.Ps relied citation   it is held and report in (2009) 5 SCC 121. In the case of  State Bank of India  Vrs. B.S.Agricultural Industries and in the case of  Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vrs. National  Insurance Co. & Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 768 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed  “Any consumer complaint which is time barred under section 24A of the  C.P. Act, of 1986 deserves to be dismissed in limine”.

Further the O.Ps in their written version contended  that  as per the vision plan if the policy holder fails to pay 3  full years installment premium, the policy  will be  deemed lapsed and all the benefits  will cease immediately. 

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

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 forum 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          5  ^th.   Day of  November,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President