Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Ketki Arora —Petitioner
versus
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3519 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 08/07/2016 in Appeal No. 692/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 3.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Apoorva Singhal, Advocte
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the State Commission or District Forum, the revision petition is not maintainable.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision - Petitioner father took an insurance policy in the name of his daughter, Ketki Arora / the present Petitioner, as life assured—As per the Petitioner, on the advice of the representative of the Respondents, plan KSAP was taken by her father who paid Rs.6 lakhs, vide cheque dated 07.05.2008 drawn on Axis Bank, Ludhiana—Subsequently, not satisfied with the policy, the father of the petitioner requested the respondents to cancel the policy and return the amount paid by him—Respondents, however, refused to cancel the policy on the ground that the petitioner has to wait for three years lock-in-period for refund of the deposited amount— Petitioner, however, did not pay any premium amounts subsequently—On 2.6.2011, the respondents returned Rs. 60,000/- along with a letter stating that the policy has gone into lapse auto termination—Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners father issued a legal notice followed by a consumer complaint—Complaint was resisted on various grounds—Heard the counsels, perused the documents—As per the IRDA regulations, the respondents have rightly terminated the policy and as such the complaint is not maintainable—Hence, there is no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the State Commission or District Forum and find no merit in the appeal - The present Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed and order passed by the District Commission as well as the State Commission are confirmed.
Result: Revision Petition is dismissed.
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 692/2013 dated 08.07.2016.
Brief facts of the Case are as follows:-
2. Petitioner’s father filled the proposal form and took an insurance policy in the name of his daughter, Ketki Arora, the present Petitioner, as life assured. According to the Petitioner, on the advice of the representative of the Respondents, plan KSAP was taken by her father who paid Rs.6 lakhs, vide cheque dated 07.05.2008 drawn on Axis Bank, Ludhiana. The Policy document issued on 27.05.2008 was, however, received on 22.07.2008. Not being satisfied with the Policy, Petitioner’s father requested the Respondents for cancellation of the Policy and refund of Rs. 6 lakhs. The Respondents, however, refused the same on the ground that the prescribed time for seeking cancellation of the Policy had expired and was advised to wait for three years lock-in-period for refund of the deposited amount. Subsequently the Respondents issued letter dated 02.06.2011, along with a cheque for Rs. 60,000/- on the ground of lapse auto termination. Being aggrieved, Petitioner’s father served legal notice dated 02.08.2011 for sending a lesser amount of Rs. 60,000/- and claimed balance amount of Rs. 5,40,000/-. In response to the above said legal notice, the Respondents, vide letter dated 17.08.2011, replied that Policy No. 01051570 was foreclosed and the Policy had moved into lapse mode on 01.07.09, due to non-receipt of premium. Petitioner contends that the Respondents resorted to unfair trade practice and are liable for deficiency in service, as they failed to act as per the terms and conditions of the Policy.
3. The Respondents filed written statement in the District Forum, where they contended that the complete set of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were supplied to the Petitioner i.e. Insured and to the Policy Holder, vide letter dated 27.05.2008. The Policy in question is a Unit Linked Insurance Plan and free look period in the Policy was clearly stated in the cover note. The Petitioner could cancel the said policy if not interested in the same, but continued with it. It is further contended that the Petitioner had opted for a premium payment plan of 20 years. He, however, failed to deposit the premium after the first year, despite repeated requests of the Respondents. The Respondents, vide letter dated 27.03.2011, requested the Petitioner and her Father to deposit the premium immediately, since the Policy was in lapsed mode. It was further informed that as per IRDA Regulations of 21.12.2005, Premium if not paid consecutively for 3 years from inception of the Policy cover, would result in deemed termination and foreclosure of the Policy in terms of clause 4 and 5 of IRDA Regulations. Since, the Petitioner did not deposit the said premium, Respondents cancelled the Policy, vide letter dated 02.06.2011, on account of auto termination. Refund of Rs, 60,000/- was also dispatched to her. The Complaint, therefore, was not maintainable against the Respondents.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. We have carefully gone through the record and orders of the State Commission and the District Forum, as also the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) Regulations.
5. The District Forum held that the Complaint is barred by time, because the cause of action accrued to Complainant to file the Complaint from 14.07.2008, when the Petitioner’s father sought cancellation of the Policy, while the Complaint was filed with the District Forum on 22.03.2012, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation. Even the present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 75 days.
6. The second issue is whether the policy is covered by IRDA Regulations of 2005 or 2010. The Policy was issued on 27.0
