Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/332/2021

Jagir Singh (Retd. Subadar Major) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Bajaj

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/332/2021
Date of Institution	:	20/05/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Jagir Singh (Retd. Subedar Major), aged 71 years s/o Sh. Sardar Singh, resident of House No.2258/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Kotak Life Insurance, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory, SCO No.141/42, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Kotak Life Insurance, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.C-12, G-Block, Bandra E, Mumbai-400051.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Jagir Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that in the month of October 2020 OPs approached the complainant regarding life insurance policy under the name of “Kotak Surkshit Jeevan” and promised that if the complainant would pay yearly premium of ₹19,405/- for 10 years, he will get benefit of ₹120,020/- plus sum assured paid amount and some other bonuses.  On the advice of OPs, complainant purchased the Kotak Surkshit Jeevan Policy (Ex.C-1) on 26.10.2010 for 10 years with yearly premium of ₹19,405/-. The complainant continuously had paid the yearly installment vide deposit receipts (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11) as per schedule and the last and 10^th installment was paid by him on 4.10.2019 and in this manner the complainant had paid total amount of ₹1,95,448/- with the OPs.  As the maturity of the said policy was due in October 2019, OPs had sent cheque (Ex.C-13) for the sum of ₹2,07,934/- only alongwith the forwarding letter (Ex.C-12) to the complainant.  However, the said amount sent by the OPs to the complainant as short and insufficient as the OPs were required to pay sum assured plus ₹1,20,020/- as benefit amount alongwith other benefits of the bonuses which the OPs had not paid. Even in the policy deposit receipt dated 4.10.2019, it has been written that this policy is eligible for bonus for the sum of ₹23,103.85. The complainant had requested the OPs by sending several emails and also with legal notice to pay the short amount paid by the OPs, but, nothing has been done.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Alleged the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed its version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and limitation.  It is also alleged that in fact whatever amount was due to be paid by the OPs to the complainant on the maturity of the policy, the same has been paid through cheque, which was encashed by the complainant without any objection.  Even the complainant had not withdrawn/cancelled the policy under the freelook period i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document and the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation.  It is further alleged that in fact OPs had received a duly filled and signed proposal form and benefit illustration for the issuance of life insurance policy from the complainant, who is an educated person, and submitted the proposal form after reading contents of the same.  As the basic sum assured was ₹1,20,020/- and the said policy was payable on its maturity alongwith other bonuses, which were calculated to ₹2,07,034.65 on its maturity and the same was paid to the complainant, the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-asserted. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the “Kotak Surkshit Jeevan” insurance policy (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) had been purchased by the complainant in the month of October 2010 with premium payment term of 10 years annually @₹19,405/- with basic sum assured of ₹1,20,020/- and the said policy matured in the month of October 2020 and on its maturity OPs had paid an amount of ₹2,07,934.65 through cheque (Ex.C-13) which was duly encashed by the complainant and the same included basic sum assured, reversionary bonus, terminal bonus and special terminal bonus, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the Ops had paid short amount to the complainant in violation of the terms of the policy and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs had paid the entire amount as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy to the complainant on the maturity of the same and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it was agreed upon by the OPs at the time of issuance of the subject policy that the OPs will pay the sum assured plus ₹1,20,020/- as benefit amount alongwith other benefits of bonuses and the same has not been paid by the OPs to the complainant on the maturity of the policy, the complainant has successfully proved on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. 
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as the OPs have immediately paid the maturity amount alongwith the benefits to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy, and the receipt of the amount of ₹2,07,934.65 has also not been disputed by the complainant, the consumer complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
   4. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the relevant portion of the same is required to be reproduced for convenience.  Ex.C-1 (at page 23) explains about the maturity benefits and the same is reproduced as under :-

          “Maturity Benefit

Subject to the policy being in force, the benefit payable on maturity shall be :

• Basic Sum Assured plus
• Vested Reversionary Bonuses and Interim Bonus (if any) plus
• Terminal Bonus (if any) plus
• A special Terminal Bonus (if any)

At maturity, the life cover and any rider benefits will cease.

The policyholder may take the maturity benefit in the following manner :

Similarly, Ex.C-1 (at page 19) also refers under the head (c) guaranteed minimum benefits payable on the date of maturity of survival of life insured to the maturity as under :-

        “c. Guaranteed Minimum Benefits payable at date of maturity on survival of the Life Insured to maturity :

         

Product	Benefit Amount (₹)	Payment Date
Basic Sum Assured	1,20,020.00	26/10/2020

5. Not only this, it has also been mentioned in the schedule that the basic sum assured is ₹1,20,020/- with date of maturity 26.10.2020 and the term of the policy is 10 years with premium payment term of 10 years.  It is also clear from the proposal form (Annexure R-1) that the same was filled by the complainant and has been duly signed by him.  Thus, one thing is clear from the terms and conditions of the subject policy (Ex.C-1) that the term of the policy was 10 years and the same had commenced w.e.f. 26.10.2010, having maturity date 26.10.2020.  Since it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid all the premiums as per the terms and conditions of the policy and on the maturity of the policy, OPs had paid an amount of ₹2,07,934.65 to the complainant, it is to be seen if the OPs had made the payment to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As it is further an admitted case of the parties that the basic sum assured was ₹1,20,020/- and even the OPs had paid the aforesaid basic amount of ₹1,20,020/- alongwith reversionary bonus to the tune of ₹30,905.15, terminal bonus to the tune of ₹39,006.5 and special terminal bonus to the tune of ₹18,003/-, as per the policy schedule and the total of the said amount comes to ₹2,07,934.65, immediately on the maturity of the subject policy through cheque (Ex.C-13), which was admittedly got encashed by the complainant, it is clear on record that the OPs had paid the aforesaid amount strictly as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6. So far as the case of the complainant that the OPs had agreed to pay the sum assured plus ₹1,20,020/- as benefit amount and other benefits of the bonuses is concerned, the same is devoid of merit, especially as the subject policy nowhere speaks about the payment of sum assured plus ₹1,20,020/- alongwith an additional amount of ₹1,20,020/- as benefit amount, rather it is clear from page 23 of the policy, as referred above, that the benefit payable on maturity shall only include basic sum assured plus vested reversionary bonuses and interim bonus plus terminal bonus, if any, plus special terminal bonus, if any.  As it has already been discussed above that the Ops had already paid the basic sum assured plus other benefits as referred in Ex.C-1 (at page 23), it is unsafe to hold that the complainant was entitled for the basic sum assured plus ₹1,20,020/- as prayed by him.
7. Moreover, when it is an admitted case of the parties that the policy was neither withdrawn nor cancelled by the complainant within the freelook period i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, it is clear that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the subject policy and he is bound by the same.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/02/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member