Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/598

Jaswant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mohindra Life Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Kapila adv

01 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:598 dated 01.10.2018                           

                             Date of decision: 01.02.2022

 

Jaswant Kaur aged 88 years wife of Shri Jagir Singh, outside of village & Post office Panj Garaian, Village Sainsowal, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

 

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, formerly known as Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, having its Local Office at Mall Road, Ludhiana through its MD/Director/Authorized person.                                                                                                               …..Opposite party

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.V.S.Mand, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is holder of policy No.02597636 known as Kotak Life Time Income Plan-(UIN-107N047V01). It was a single premium policy obtained by the complainant on 20.12.2012. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs to OP at the time of obtaining the policy and she was entitled to lifetime income cash back. However, the OP failed to make the monthly payment to the complainant for the last 5 months. Therefore, the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OP and did not want to continue with the policy and sought refund of the premium with interest. In this regard, the complainant sent a letter dated 30.05.2018 calling upon the OP to supply the complete details of the policy and to refund the amount received from the complainant against the policy with interest but to no avail. Even a legal notice dated 08.06.2018 served upon the OP failed to evoke a positive response from them. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to supply the complete details of the policy and in the alternative, to refund the amount received from the complainant along with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. According to the OP, the complainant has been receiving the regular annuity premiums as per the terms and conditions of the policy on the basis of Certificate of Existence (COE). The complainant was entitled to annuity payment on submission of the Certificate of Existence for the year 2018 also as per the policy terms and conditions but she failed to submit the same despite reminders sent to her. As such, the payment was not released. After filing the present complaint, the complainant submitted the Certificate of Existence on 16.04.2019 and the annuity payment was released to her. Thus the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing and suppressing the material facts. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.Aditya Singh, Chief Manager of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records as well as written submissions submitted by the OP.

6.                Primarily in this case, the claim of the complainant is that she was not paid the monthly payment of annuity premium for the last five months immediately prior to the filing of the complaint on 01.10.2018 which means that the payment of annuity premium from the month of May 2018 onwards was not released to the complainant, even though she sent a letter dated 30.05.2018 to the OP. The complainant has placed on record the letter dated 30.05.2018 as Ex.C2 wherein also it is mentioned that the monthly payment for the last 5 months has not been released to the complainant by the OP. However, no postal receipt to prove of having sent the letter dated 30.05.2018 has been placed on record. On the contrary, the case of the OP is that the regular annuity premium were being released to the complainant but she was under an obligation to submit the certificate of existence in the year 2018 as per the policy terms and conditions and since the requisite certificate not submitted, the payment was not released but was finally released after complainants submits the certificate of existence on 16.04.2019, copy of which is Ex.R2. These facts have been categorically stated by the OP in the written statement. The complainant has not filed any replication to controvert the averments made in the written statement. Therefore, it has not been rebutted by the complainant that she submitted the certificate of existence in time enabling OP to release the payment of monthly annuity premium in the year 2018. Rather, the OP has proved on record that certificate of existence Ex.R2 was submitted on 16.04.2019 following which the outstanding annuity payment have already been released to the complainant and this fact has not been disputed by counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.02.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma