Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/169

ChoteLal S/o Sh. Sh. Suraj Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:28.02.2008

Complaint Case. No.169/08                                           Date of order: 22.07.2017

IN  MATTER OF

ChoteLal  S/o Sh. Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, R/o D-140, BhagwatiViharUttam Nagar,New Delhi.                                                       

Complainant

VERSUS

1.        The  Managing Director, Kotak Mahindra Old  Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.at  Community  CenterC-Block, C-31 JanakPuri, New Delhi -110058.

                                                                                                Opposite party no.1

2.        Ms. RichaBhatnagarInsurance  Consultant, KotakMahendra Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. at Community Center JanakPuri, Delhi -also at:- 240-C Pushpanjali Enclave  PitamPura Delhi.

                                                                                                Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Sh. ChoteLal named above herein the complainant has filed the presentcomplaint under section 12 of  TheConsumer Protection Act against  the Managing Director  KotakMahendra, Old Mutual  Life Insurance  Ltd.  and another herein after in short referred  as the  opposite parties   for directions to the opposite parties to accept claim of the complainant  of  policy no. 00701282for sum ofRs. 5,00,040/- with interest @  18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation on account  of mental and physical agony and litigation expenses.

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the complaint  as stated are that late  Smt. ManjuChoteLal  W/o  Sh. ChoteLal complainant  purchased  policy no. 00701282 of the opposite party no. 1 through opposite party no. 2 agent of the opposite party no. 1 on 27.07.2007 on payment of Rs 8,334/-  two monthly premiums for assured  sum of Rs. 5,00,040/-.That  Smt. ManjuChoteLal died on 25.11.2007 in  DeenDayalUpadhyay Hospital New Delhi.  The complainant submitted claim to the opposite party  no.1 of the insurance policy no.00701282  on  account  of death of Smt. ManjuChoteLal.  But the opposite party no.1vide letter dated 15.02.2008 repudiated claim of the complainant on the ground that monthly premium of the insurance policy of the deceased was due on 16.10.2007.  She did not pay the monthly premium on 16.10.2007 orin  extended period of 15 days up to 31.10.2007 .  Therefore, the policy expired on 31.10.2007 and they are not liable  to pay the assured  amount.  They sent cheque no. 035687 dated 05.02.2008 for sum of Rs. 7,519/- only.   The complainant returned the amount.  The opposite party no. 1 arbitrarily and unlawfully repudiated claim of the complainant.  Hence  the present complaint for directions to the opposite party no. 1 to pay sum of Rs.5,00,040/- assured sum of  insurance policy no. 00701282  with interest @  18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation on account  of mental and  physical agony and litigation expenses.

After notice  the opposite party no.1 appeared  and filed reply  to the complaint raising  preliminary objections of  maintainability of the complaint in the present form, cause  of action and the  complaint is false and frivolous , therefore, liable to be dismissed.  However, on merits the opposite party no. 1  admitted that Smt. ManjuChoteLal  took policy no. 00701282 on payment of Rs. 8,334/- two monthly premiums. The insurance  documents were sent to herand she was  to pay  the next monthly premium  on 16.10.2007  or up to  31.10.2007   within extended period of 15 days.  She did not  pay the premium either on 16.10.2007 or on 31.10.2007, therefore, as per the  terms and conditions of the Insurance policy the policy lapsed on 31.10.2007.  Smt. ManjuChoteLal died on 25.11.2007.  Therefore, the claim of the complainanton the basis of policy no. 00701282 on account of death of Smt. ManjuChoteLal was repudiated.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently  denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant  filedreplication to the reply  of opposite party no.1. while controverting  stand of the opposite party no. 1 and reiterating  his stand and  once again  prayed for directions to the opposite party no. 1.

            When Sh. ChoteLal Complainant was asked to lead evidence, he filed affidavit   narrating facts of the complaint.  He also relied   upon   Annexure –I Pan Card No. ACQPL0635G and DrivingLicenceNo.P04052007517257, Annexure-2

death certificate of  Smt.  ManjuChoteLal, Annexure-3 insurance policy no. 00701282, Annexure- 4 receipt of premium dated 21.08.2007 with acknowledgement,  Annexure-5  postmortem report of Smt. ManjuChoteLal, Annexure- 7  birth certificates of Anjali and Paras, Annexure-8 letter dated 15.02.2008 of   repudiation  of claimalongwith copy of the cheque no. 03568 dated 15.02.2008, Annexure- 9  receipt of courier and Annexure -10 letter dated 05.03.2008 written by  complainant  to  opposite party no.1.alongwithchequeno. 410712 dated 05.03.2008.

When the opposite party no.1 wasasked to lead evidence, they filed affidavit of R. Mahesh Kumar, AssociateVice  President Legal narrating facts of the reply.  The opposite party   no.1   also produced copies of all the documents  already filed by the complainant including option for payment of premium through ECS.

The parties also filed written arguments support of their respective  contentions.

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record carefully and thoroughly. 

After having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and going through the  material available on the record  it is common case of the parties that Mrs. ManjuChoteLal  took  policy no. 00701282 on payment of two monthly premiums  of Rs. 4,167/- each on assured sum of Rs. 5,00,040/- .  The next premium  was payable   on or 16.10.2007.  The deceased  was required  to pay next monthly premium  on 16.10.2007 or within extended period of  15 days  that is by 31.10.2007.  The deceased hadopted ECS for payment of monthly premium.  The deceased  did not pay the monthly premium either on 16.10.2007 or within extended period of 15 days up to 31.10.2007. 

The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not disclose date of payment of the next premium.  The deceased and the complainant several times inquired from the opposite parties regarding date of payment of the monthly premium.   The opposite parties told them that they will be intimated in time aboutdate of the payment of the premium.  But the opposite parties did not inform the deceased and the complainant about due date of payment of the premium.   Therefore, there is  negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  This contention of the complainant stands repelledfrom Annexure -4 letterdated  21.08.2007 and receipt  dated 27.08.2007.   From bare perusal of the receipt it reveals that due date for payment of next premium was 16.10.2007 with extended period of 15 days. 

The case  of the opposite party is that under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Annexure- I the opposite parties  were not required to intimate the complainant about  due date of payment of next  premium.  The mode of  payment of the premium opted by the deceased  was ECS.  The opposite  parties asked the banker of the deceased  to make payment of the monthly premium on due date i.e.16.10.2007.   But the ECS failed on account of insufficient balance. The opposite parties in support  of their case  relied upon Annexure -5 letter dated 18.10.2007 showing that the deceased  was informed  that due date for payment of next premiumwas on16.10.2007  and payment  through ECS was dis-honored by the banker of the deceased on account of insufficient balance.  Hence opposite parties succeeded to show that the opposite parties intimated the complainant  about dishonor  of ECS and due date for payment  of premium.   But neither  the complainant  nor the deceased paid the premium  on or  before 16.10.2007with extended period of 15 days from 16.10.2007 up to  31.10.2007.  Therefore, the policy no. 00701282 lapsed on 31.10.2017.

Smt. ManjuChoteLal  died on 25.11. 2007.  The policy of the deceased  had already  lapsed on 31.10.2007.   Therefore, the  opposite party no. 1 rightly repudiated the  claim of the complainant.  There is no unfair trade practice , negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

  Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :22.07.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT