DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK

Dated the 11^th day of November, 2020

C.D Case No. 43 of 2018

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

Santosh Kumar Panda, aged about 42 years

S/o - Banchhanidhi Panda

Vill - Sudarsanpur, Po – Suan

P.s -Basudebpur, Dist -Bhadrak, pin -756162

Mob -8018155995

                                                                                                     ………………Petitioner

                        Vrs

1. The Officer- in charge, TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE Company limited, Extn. Office at Bhadrak
2. The Officer – in charge, TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE Company limited, branch officer at Balasore
3. The Manager, TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE Company limited, Corporate & Regd Office: - 14^thfloor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013.
4. The Managing Director, TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE Company limited, Corporate & Regd Office :- 14^th floor , Tower A, Peninsula Business park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai -400013                                                              ………………. Opposite parties.

Counsel For Complainant: In Person

Counsel For the O.Ps: Sri Amitav Mohapatra, Adv & Others

Date of hearing: 15.01.2019

Date of order: 11.11.2020

RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.

The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that, the complainant has availed a TATA AIG MAHALIFE insurance from aforesaid O.Ps, the insurance provider. He purchased some valuable documents from the O.P No. 3 and 4 vide policy No. C000169200 on payment of INR RS. 35,445/- towards semi-annual mode of payment. As per the terms and conditions of policy the complainant should deliver three years mode of payment to its recipients, TATA AIG MAHALIFE INSURANCE CPOMPANY LTD. The complainant should have provided six instalments as semi-annual mode of payment. The complainant could not deposit such a huge amount as he has lost his job at TCS, after payment of three instalments. The complainant also could not deposit the total premium of RS. 10,00,000/- due to financial problems for which he has requested to the company, but the said company could not provide the rest amount of money, whose last premium due date was Dt. 27.05.2018. The complainant has prayed to refund back the deposited money and refused to accept the request of the complainant for which the complained has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in this commission.

Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs,

1. The complainant be refunded the entire amount of deposited money to the complainant from the O.Ps.
2. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled to deemed fit by the commission.

The following documents have been filed by the complainant (Xerox copies)-:

1. TATA AIG MAHALIFE Bond Paper.
2. Money receipt of one instalment payment.
3. Generation of request by the complainant
4. Application form.
5. Identity proof of the complainant.
6. Bank account number.

The O.Ps have appeared in this commission to their concerned advocates as well as filed their W/V and objection analogously. They have denied all the allegations made by the complainant against them. They have averred that this complaint is barred by law of Limitation as well as the cause of action. The cause of action arose in the year 2009, when the policy was lapsed and the complaint should have been filed within two years as per section-24(a) of C.P Act, 1985. The complaint is strongly barred by law of jurisdiction as per Sec.11 of C.P Act. There was no Branch office at Bhadrak at the time of filling this instant case. The complaint has signed the application at Mumbai and the O.P sources the policy from Mumbai. The cause of action if any arose in the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts as the sole O.P carriage on business in the jurisdiction of such Courts.

The policy has been purchased by the Consignee agent Mr. Sunil Anant Niphaldkar, being Agent branch Mumbai Khar- MUO5, he has not been made a party to this case. So this case is barred by Non-joinder of necessary parties. The O.Ps have never caused any deficiency of service to the complainant and the complainant has not remarked this vital thing in his complaint.

The facts of this W/V is that on Dt. 07.12.2006 the Complainant referred to as the Policy Holder “took the plan TATA AIA MAHALIFE “ Which was issued with Policy No. C000169200 For a Premium paying term of Twelve Years and Policy tem up to Seventy Years with maturity Dt. 27.11.2020 and sum assured of RS. 10, 00,000(TEN LAKS), with Premium of Rs. 36,243/- modes Semi-annually. In pursuance of RS. 35,807/- and the Policy was issued. Annexure. A & B – Application form, Policy Information page, Policy Contract, Sales Illustration Form of the Policy and First Premium Receipt.

That, the Policy application form contained a free look period clause i.e the Policy holder has a right to cancel and get refund of premium paid by a written notice of the Policy holder within 15 days of its receipt. The complainant did not exercise any refund of premium right and thus he accepted the policy.

The relevant portion is reproduced here for your ready reference:

“A Policy holder has period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy document to review the terms and conditions of the Policy and the insured disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has option to return the policy stating the reason for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges”.

The complainant has paid Semi-Annual renewal premiums such as on Dt.11.07.2008 RS. 35,810/-, on Dt. 21.07.2008 RS. 35,810/-, on Dt. 04.12.2007 RS. 35,810/- and on Dt. 19.06.2007 RS. 35,810/-. Premium payment receipts are annexed as Annexure. D series. Thereafter the complainant has never requested for revival of the Policy and remained silent, after lapse of 9 years he has filed this case. Due to Non-payment of renewal premium within due dates, the instant Policy got lapsed and all benefits under the Policy got forfeited. If any premium unpaid and the end of its Grace Period, the Policy shall lapse and has no further value except as may be provided under the Non-Forfeiture provisions. Copy of Policy contract is annexed herewith as Annexure. E.

Hence, the O.Ps have prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.

The O.Ps have relied upon the documents as described above Annexure series. A, B, C, D & E.

                                                OBSERVATION

We have already gone through the complaint and the W/V as well as perused the documents filed by both the parties. We have observed which are discussed as follows -:

1. The complainant should have taken shelter under this commission with cleaned hands. The sole motto of the C.P Act is to find out the deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice caused to the complainant on behalf of the O.Ps, but the complainant has not remarked the deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice in his complaint. Even the complainant has not written a single sentence in his complaint about the deficiency of service and the dishonest trade practice caused by the O.P to the complainant.
2. The complainant has also failed to describe about the cause of action of the instant case. He has also omitted the date of cause of action and how the cause of action arose. The complainant deposited Semi-Annual Premium. It is also admitted by the O.Ps that the complainant has deposited four Semi-Annual Premium. The money receipts has been annexed as Annexure. C series which is not adequate to the insurance. The complainant had to pay the next Premium on due date 27.05.2009 but the complainant has failed to deposit the same Premium amount. The O.P No. 2 & 3 had sent notices to the complainant on Dt. 23.04.2009 and 11.06.2009 but the complainant did not make any outstanding renewal Premium payment and as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, the same got lapsed on Dt. 27.06.2009 and all benefits under the Policy got forfeited. The company sent a lapse notice on Dtd. 29.06.2009 to the complainant which has been annexed as Annexure. D series. Then the complainant did not request for revival of the Policy and remained silent. After that the complainant has made no correspondence with the O.P No. 2, 3 & 4 regarding the Policy. After lapse of 9 years the complainant has filed the instant case against the O.Ps. Hence the instant complaint is barred by cause of action and law of limitation. The C.P Act provides that “the complaint can be entertained in the district commission within two years from the date of cause of action”.
3. As per the above discussion we have come to the findings that, the said policy has already been got forfeited due to the negligence of the complainant. The complainant has filed the complaint in this commission in a belated stage. The instant complaint is barred by Law of Limitation and lack of cause of action. Further no deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice has been caused by the O.Ps towards the complainant. So this proceeding is not maintainable. Hence it is ordered;

ORDER

The complaint be and the same is dismissed without cost, having no merit.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 11^th November, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.