Delhi

New Delhi

CC/421/2013

Irfan Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                                 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                            NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C.421/2013                                                Dated:

          In the matter of:

Irfan Ahamad,

House No.F-39/8 Abul Fazal Enclave,

Part-2 Jamia Nagar Okhla, New Delhi-110025.

…… Complainant

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

            7^th Floor 14, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01

 

Also at:

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

8B, Eight Floor, Atma Ram House Tolystoy Marg,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01

 

Also at:

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

B-201-211 2^nd Floor Somdatt Chambers B-Wingh,

Ph.1 Bhikhaji Kama Place, New Delhi-66.

 

Also at:

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,

Kotak Infinity 7^th Floor, Zone-4,

Building No.21 Infinity Park,

General A.K. Vaidya Marg Malad(E)

Mumbai-400097. Through it’s Managing Director

……. Opposite party.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is that on continuous persuasion by the official of the OP, the complainant purchased a policy bearing No.00584711  w.e.f. 25.02.2007 for a sum insured of Rs.7, 50,000/- p.a. for five years.  The said policy was sold by the OP with a commitment that the complainant had to pay the premium for five years only and the policy would continue for 15 years.  The complainant paid the first installment of the policy, it was assured by the agent of the OP that the policy documents would be delivered to the complainant very shortly but despite waiting for a long the complainant did not receive the policy documents.  It is also assured by the agent of the OP that after payment of 1^st premium the complainant has to pay the monthly premium of Rs.12,500/- against the policy in question and he had a right to pay the premium quarterly or half yearly as per his convenient. After four years has been lapsed, the complainant did not receive any document but on one occasion, he received the reminder from the OP for depositing the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-, as such the complainant visited the office of the OP and informed to its official that he had not received the policy documents and requested to issue the same.  The official of the OP asked the complainant to deposit the premium of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter only the policy document will be handed over to him. Being dis-satisfied by the response of the OP, the complainant vide letter dt. 24.2.2011 asked the OP to cancel the policy in question and refund the amount deposited.  The complainant received the letter dt.1.8.2011 from the OP vide which OP flatly refused to refund the deposited amount. The complainant also sent a legal notice dt.12.12.2011 to the OP but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  It has filed its written statement, wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days, during this period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation,  if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 27.02.2007 and the same was duly received by him.  The complainant failed to approach OP for conversion/cancellation or refund of amount deposited against the policy during free-looking period, hence, it was presumed that the contract was legally concluded between the parties. 

3.     The OP has strongly challenged the issue of limitation on the ground that the policy has been admittedly issued on 25.2.2007 and the instant complaint was filed in the year May 2013 in which the complainant has alleged that the subject policy is an outcome of mis-selling which purportedly caused during the issuance of the said policy, hence, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in filing the present complaint and hence barred by limitation.  It is further prayed that the  present complaint be dismissed on this ground alone.

4.     Both the parties have filed their  evidences by way of affidavit.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the policy document was received by the complainant on 27.2.2007 and he filed the present complaint on 6.5.2013, hence the same was barred by limitation because the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued in the year 2007 i.e. from the date of issuance of policy in question.   

7.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OP Insurance Co. had never provided him the policy documents and as such the cause of action is continuous and the present complaint is filed well within the period of limitation and he is entitled for the relief claim.

8.     We have gone through the complainant, written statement as well as the annexure attached  therewith.  Along with its written statement, OP Insurance Co. has placed on record the copy of  affidavit-cum- indemnity issued by the complainant in which at Para-2, it is stated by the complainant that the Co. issued the policy contract bearing No.584711(the said policy/said original policy contract) was issued and dispatched to us on 26.2.2007 and the same was acknowledged by us.  This proves that the policy document was received by the complainant on 26.2.2007.   Further, the complainant at Para-5 & 6 declared that the policy in question has been lost/misplaced and is no longer available with him.  It is further declared that he tried to locate the same but could not found and as such requested the OP by way of this affidavit-cum- indemnity to issue the duplicate policy to him.

9.     The bare perusal of the copy of affidavit-cum- indemnity makes it clear that the complainant had received policy documents way back in the year 2007.  If he is not satisfied with the policy he ought to have approached this Forum within two years of receipt of the policy documents which he failed to do so, hence, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the date accrual of cause of action is 6.2.2007 i.e date of receipt of policy documents and the present complaint was filed on 6.5.2013 i.e. beyond the period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.

10.    In view of the above, we find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

        A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 13/11/2019.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER