FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Sri Gautam Mitra being a senior citizen invested Rs.2,70,000/- by issuing various cheques for policies to be issued by the OP Insurance Company. The details are mentioned herein below.
Policy No. Date Invested Amounts (Rs.)
120113390241 23.01.2012 1,00,000/-
120213447069 12.02.2012 25,000/-
120113405289 14.02.2012 40,000/-
120213436470 23.02.2012 30,000/-
111013286124 50,000/-
111013294362 25,000/-
__________________________________________________________
The policy Nos. 111013286124 & 111013294362 were cancelled by the complainants and the amounts so cancelled got refunded vide Cheque Nos. 076408 & 076409 dated 22.8.2013 on HDFC Bank. The complainant was informed to collect the said cheques from the office of the OP. The communication was made on wrong address. The complainants did not receive the policy documents for a pretty long time and finally wrote a letter dated 12.12.2012 to cancel the policies if issued at all. It is claimed by the OP vide letter dated 23.12.2013 that an option was also provided to cancel the policies within a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy but no such policy was delivered to the complainant probably for recording wrong address. As such the condition of receipt of the policy has not been complied and accordingly the request for cancellation has been erroneously rejected. It is also submitted that recording wrong address is nothing but negligence in providing service and it attracts section 2 (r) of CP Act,1986. Since the policies are not received, provision of free look period would not apply. It is submitted by the complainant that taking advantage of the wrong done by the OP, refund of the invested amount with interest made by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Being aggrieved by the actions of the OP, the complainant has approached the Commission for justice with relief/reliefs as detailed in the complaint petition.
The OP has contested the case by filing their WV contending inter alia that the case is barred by law of limitation. The OP rejected the complainant’s claim for cancellation of policies vide letter dated 23.12.2013. The complainant had no explanation as to why the instant complaint had been filed in the year 2018 after a delay of 5 years. The complainant could not be able to frame an issue of deficiency of service by the OP. The Ld. Advocate for the OP has cited the case law under reference: Civil Appeal No. 5534 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 7865-7866 of 2005 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has made it clear that “jurisdiction of consumer forum can be invoked only in case where they has been deficiency in service on the part of insurer. The policies in question were in the year 2012 and cancellation request was made beyond the free look period vide letter dated 25.10.2013 and the OP Insurance Company after making necessary enquiry found no legitimate ground and declined the request vide letter dated 23.12.2013. The complainant thereafter raised a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 to make out the instant case. The policies were issued based on the proposal form and other documents submitted by the policy holder. The proposal and other documents were duly signed by the policy holder at the time of submission of the same to the OP. Moreover, a call was made to the policy holder after the issue of policy to reconfirm the details and terms and conditions of the plan. During the call, the policy holder also confirmed that he had signed the proposal form and benefit illustration. As per regulation 4 (1) of the IRDA regulations, 2002 the insurer had along with the policy document sent the copy of proposal form signed and submitted by the policy holder to reexamine the reply given by the policy holder to the various questions for necessary correction if any. Moreover, under regulations 6 (1) of IRDA Regulations, 2002 the policy holder has been given free look period of 15 days through a well come letter and terms and conditions. It is also stated that the complainant had made out the excuse of cancellation as an afterthought and the policy contained the address as filled up by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid submission, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
- Whether the instant consumer case is maintainable in the eye of law?
2) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?
3) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Point Nos. 1 to 3:-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Sri Gautam Mitra purchased 05 (five) policies from the OP Insurance Company in the year 2012. The policy Nos. 111013286124 & 111013294362 were cancelled by him and he got the refund amount as per rules. His complaint is concerned with the other four policies which he intended to cancel. As per available documents, the cancellation request was made on 25.11.2016, 12.03.2014, 09.09.2014 & 26.03.2013 . We also find that OP has replied vide letter dated 03.10.2013 & 23.12.2013. Finally a legal notice was sent to the OP vide letter dated 12.01.2018. The consumer complaint has been filed on 20.04.2018 to this Commission. From the above statistics, it appears that the OP has sent their last letter on 23.12.2013 from which the cause of action has started. Against that the complainant has filed the case on 20.04.2018 which is after a period of 04 years 04 months. Mere correspondence by sending Advocate’s letter afterwards does not save the limitation. Moreover, we also do not find any prayer of the complainant to condone the delay in filing the case beyond the stipulated period of two years with the day wise explanation of delay.
Under the above facts and circumstances and as per section 69 (1) & (2) of the C.P. Act, 2019 the Commission has no scope and jurisdiction to entertain such complaint which has been filed beyond the limitation period. Since we are barred by the C.P. Act 2019 as mentioned above to entertain the complaint there is no reason to discuss the other issues involved herein.
In the result, the consumer complaint fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
