STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 27.03.2017
Date of final hearing: 23.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 03.08.2023
First Appeal No.343 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
- Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. City Centre Plaza Building, Opp IB College, GT Road, Panipat through its local Branch Manager.
- Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali-160060 through its Branch Manager. ....Appellants
Versus
- Sivani minor daughter of Sita Ram, R/o Village Singhu, Narela, Delhi at present Village Sevli, Tehsil & Distt. Sonepat.
- Monika, Advisor of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited, Residence Cum office Village Sevli, Tehsil & Distt. Sonepat.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Rohit Goswami, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. Sikander Bakshi, proxy counsel for Sh. Nitesh Singhi, counsel for respondent No. 1.
Presence of respondent No.2 already dispensed with.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
As per office report; this appeal has been filed with a delay of 141 days. There is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay, wherein, delay has been mentioned of 102 days. Integral part of application is that: order dated 07.10.2016 was received by Advocate of appellant on 28.10.2016, who further sent it to head office on 05.11.2016. Head office further sent the same to its legal department for getting legal opinion and it was decided to prefer appeal. A fact cannot be disputed that some-time is normally consumed in process of filing appeal and to obtain prior approval of competent authority where any appeal is to be filed by some department. This principle is equally applicable where applicant is private corporate house as it is so in present case. Hence, in opinion of this Commission the cause projected in application which is supported by affidavit of authorized signatory for condoning the delay do constitute sufficient cause. Hence, application for seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal is allowed. Delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.
2. Challenge in this appeal No.343 of 2017 is invited by Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. to the legality of order dated 07.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Sonepat (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.332 of 2015.
3. In brief, complainant has alleged that she was told about a plan of insurance policy by OP No. 3. Plan is: to pay premium for three years, or one fixed time premium. After three years, depositor can withdraw the policy and receive amount of policy mentioned therein, or surrender the policy after three years and receive the deposited amount plus market value. Complainant accepted the plan of life insurance and paid Rs.1,00,000/- for her insurance, yearly on 11.02.2009. She was insured by OPs No. 1 and 2 vide policy No.13727470 on 11.02.2009 for basic assured sum of Rs.7.5 lacs. Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for her policy for one time fixed premium for three years. After three years, complainant went to office of OP No.1, who assured her to pay after one week with market value when she surrenders her policy. On 03.04.2013, she surrendered her policy. After one week, when she went to office of OP No.1, payment of amount was denied to her. After persuasion, OP No.1 gave her Rs.2,06,000/- of surrendered policy on 31.10.2013, whereas amount of policy as per market value was Rs.2,88,350/- on 03.04.2013. It is pleaded that OPs had given her less amount which is illegal. She told OP on 31.10.2013 to pay her full amount of policy, but OP remained silent. She has suffered financial loss of Rs.20,000/-. With these allegations, she filed complaint for directions to OPs to return/pay remaining premium amount i.e. Rs.94,000/- or correct market value with interest @9% p.a.; Rs.20,000/- for financial loss on account of deficiency in service of OPs, Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of complaint.
4. OPs No. 1 & 2 their joint defence have submitted that policy was issued to complainant by Mumbai office; proposal form was submitted in office at Mohali. Complainant is resident of VPO Singhu, Narela-Delhi and she had intentionally written her address of Sonepat just to get jurisdiction of this Forum. It is pleaded that money, having being invested in cumulative benefits, complaint is not maintainable. It is time barred. OP issued policy No.13727470 on 11.02.2009 for policy term 15 years, with premium paying term of 15 years, for basic sum assured (Rs.7.5 lacs) for which, complainant has to pay annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. Insurer has received three installments only as per its record. In case, policy holder is not satisfied with terms and conditions of policy, he/she can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under “Freelook period”. Policy document along with application form was duly received by her, which contained detail benefits to be received by her as per stages/situations. She was within her rights to get policy cancelled within 15 days from its receipt, but she failed to do so. She never visited office of OP No.1 within freelook period of 15 days. Relevant provision giving option to complainant to apply for refund under freelook period runs as under:-
“In the event you disagree with any of the terms and conditions of the policy, you may return the policy to the company within 15 days of its receipt for cancellation, stating your objections in which case you shall be entitled for refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the life assured and stamp duty charges.”
It is denied that after a span of three years complainant requested for surrender for policy. It is also denied that she visited the office of OP on 03.04.2013. It is pleaded that firstly complainant approached the office of OP on 16.10.2013 and requested to pay out of the policy. Amount to be credited in her account was made clear and she signed payout/discharge voucher admitting the same and discharging insurer from all liabilities. Application form itself contain condition: “the contract shall conclude on the surrender money and same shall be treated as valid discharge for company”.
It is pleaded that Rs.2,06,435.19 paise was transferred in her account on 21.10.2013 vide RTGS No. 7131021522116, as full and final amount. It is denied that insurer has given her less amount and she suffered financial loss of Rs.20,000/-. Inter alia, on these pleas, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. OP No.3 in her written statement has submitted that she met complainant at her house where plan of life insurance was explained which is only for three years. Complainant accepted the plan of life insurance for fixed one time and paid Rs.1,00,000/- for her insurance yearly on 11.02.2009. She was insured by OPs No.1 and 2 vide policy No.13727470 on 11.02.2009 for basic sum assured i.e. Rs.7.5 lacs. Installment of Rs.1,00,000/- of above policy was paid on same date.
6. On analyzing rival submissions and pleas; learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat vide order dated 07.10.2016 has allowed the complaint, thereby directing OPs No.1 and 2 to make payment of Rs.94,000/- to complainant within period of 60 days from the date of order, otherwise, amount shall fetch interest @9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs No. 1 and 2-appellants have preferred this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that deduction of Rs.94,000/- by appellants was legally tenable and impugned order dated 07.10.2016 to pay this amount to complainant, is erroneous. Amount as admissible, which was surrendered value of policy, has been paid to complainant and there is no deficiency in service of appellants/OPs No. 1 and 2. It is further urged that complaint filed before learned District Consumer Commission was time barred. It was instituted on 09.09.2015 whereas, policy was purchased by complainant on February-2009 and cause of action arose to complainant finally on February-2012 and learned District Consumer Commission has failed to consider this aspect. On these submissions learned counsel for appellants has urged for acceptance of appeal.
9. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Commission is justified on given facts and evidence and same does not warrant any interference in this appeal.
10. This Commission has critically and subjectively analyzed rival submissions put before it.
11. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for appellants that complaint instituted before learned District Consumer Commission was time barred. Amount of Rs. 2,06,435.19 in relation to policy in question was transferred in the account of complainant on 21.10.2013 as full and final amount and this is admitted fact. By reckoning period of limitation from 21.10.2013, this complaint having instituted on 09.09.2015 is within limitation period. Even communication (Annexure C-3) of appellants to complainant is dated 19.03.2015. This communication recites that surrender value of policy was given to complainant on 31.10.2013 and surrender value was given late after some technical reason. Even, if limitation is reckoned from the date when complainant had been conveyed by appellants of this letter (Annexure C-3 dated 19.03.2015) then also, this complaint having being filed instituted under old Act, is within limitation (reference to Section 24-A of old Act). Consequently, this contention of learned counsel for appellant does not hold any ground and same stood repelled.
12. Undisputedly, complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- towards premium in relation to her life insurance policy No. 13727470. Admittedly, her policy was foreclosed. Rs.2,06,435.19 paise has been transferred in her account on 21.10.2013 through RTGS as full and final amount. During course of arguments in this appeal, learned counsel for appellants has been impressed upon to satisfy this Commission about the details of deductions to the tune of Rs.94,000/- made by them, while releasing amount (Rs.2,06,435.19 paise) to complainant under policy, but learned counsel for appellants could not explain the same. Needless to say, that appellants were required to furnish details in this regard in their defence, before learned District Consumer Commission and joint written statement filed by them, sans such details. Obviously, less amount, under insurance policy in question, has been credited in the account of complainant on 21.10.2013. Rightly, learned District Consumer Commission has directed appellants to make payment of Rs.94,000/- to complainant. Directions issued by learned District Consumer Commission cannot be found, faulted. This being so, it is held that there is no illegality or perversity or manifest factual error, in impugned order dated 07.10.2016 passed by learned District Commission-Sonepat. It is accordingly affirmed and maintained. This appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
14. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 03rd August, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
