Delhi

New Delhi

CC/546/2017

Vanita Sahni - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.546/2017

 

Vanita Sahni,

1/54, Sadar Bazar,

Near Jain Mandir,

Delhi Cantt., New Delhi                                                                       

….Complainant

Vs.

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.,

Jeevan Parkash,  23, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                   

    …Opposite Party

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has  filed  the  present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the owner of the LIC policy bearing No.112777425 named as Jeevan Surksha issued in the year 2000.  It is alleged that she never received the original policy documents from OP.   It is submitted that  on 30.3.2010, she received a premium receipt of the alleged policy with the direction to deposit a sum of Rs.47,680/- as late fee for renewal of the policy. It is further alleged that she approached  OP and requested it to accept a cheque bearing No.185327 dated 21.4.2010 for a sum of Rs.10195/- against the total deposit of Rs.47,680/- but OP refused it to accept the same.  It is alleged by the  complainant  that on 22.7.2014, she approached the OP and requested it to refund the amount deposited by her against the first premium as she never get the original policy documents as such not aware about its terms and conditions.  But nothing has been done by the OP to resolve the issue, hence this complaint.

 

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to  the OP. It has been pleaded in the reply that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  The question of limitation was strongly agitated by OP, hence, need to be decided first.  It has been pleaded that the date of the commencement of policy was 22.3.2002 under Insurance Plan No.122 for insured Rs.1,50,000/- with yearly premium of Rs.10,195/- for the term of 15 years. The alleged policy in question had lapsed way back in the year 2001 as the complainant failed to pay the premium.  On 30.10.2010, letter was sent to the complainant for revival of the policy subject to the payment of late fee by the complainant but despite opportunities complainant failed to pay the premium and as such as on dated the policy is in lapse condition and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

 

3.       The complainant has filed the present complaint on 27.11.2017, whereas the policy lapsed in the year 2001 which is beyond the period of two years as mentioned in Section 24A of Limitation Act.

 

4.       We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that the present complaint was filed on 27.11.2017, the policy was lapsed in the year 2001, the complainant received the letter for the renewal of the policy in the year 2010 but instead of depositing the amount the complainant remained silent and again on 22.7.2014 she approached the OP for the refund of the deposited amount. The OP vide its letter dated 22.7.2014 rejected her claim on the ground that the policy is in lapsed condition.  If at all the and cause of action accrued be consider from the date of rejection of the claim i.e. 22.7.2014 the complainant approached this Forum on 27.11.2017  i.e after the expiry of two years.

 As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

1. The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

 

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

5.       On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC – in that case in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.

6.       In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above,  we are of the considered opinion that if at all  the cause of action for filing the present complaint be considered  vide letter dated 22.7.2014,  the present complaint was filed on 27.11.2017, the complaint is barred by limitation, therefore, we find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

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

 

Announced in open Forum on  04/09/2018.

 

( ARUN KUMAR ARYA )

PRESIDENT

 

                                    (NIPUR CHANDNA )                                                 ( H.M. VYAS )

                                           MEMBER                                                                MEMBER