JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“This complaint has been filed with the allegation that OP-2 provided four life insurance policies of Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold Bearing Nos. 0107433275, 0107441257, 0107442401 and 0107444851 from their Delhi office The complainant had put forwarded a proposal for an insurance policy a Corporate Agent - to OP-3, a of OP-2, which was accepted and the above noted four policies were issued. OP-3 had been violating all the banking rules laid down by Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of achieving the targets and thereby cheating the honest and unsuspecting customers. The OP-3 with total disregard to Bank Nationalization Act of 1970 and rules laid down by IRDA sold the policies to the complainant. A total premium of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid through Cheque No. 0414967 The complainant wanted to surrender the policies but it was told by OP-1 that she will have to wait for one more year and it is only after the completion of 36 months from the date of the issuance of the policy that it can be surrendered. On 12.09 2011 she again went to the office of the OP-1 with a request for the surrender of the policies but was shocked and surprised that the total amount deposited for the whole policy amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- had fetched her only Rs.1,23,750/- thereby causing a direct loss of Rs.56,250/- in 36 months She suffered a great mental pain and agony due to the behavior of OP. She has prayed to this Forum for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.11,000/- towards the cost of litigation and any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper in this case.

The OP-1 & OP-2 in their reply stated that the complainant has already surrendered the policies and the amount is admittedly received by her, which was paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance. She has not raised any protest. Since, contract stands terminated, thus, the complainant is not a Consumer and there is no deficiency of services on the part of the OPs. The complaint is also barred by limitation U/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. The policies in question were issued on 01.09.2008. The main allegation that has been consume OP-3 who has sourced the policies as a corporate agent that the agents are independent contractors who are licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority who act as a agent for solicitation of insurance business for insurance company. Since, there is no Principal- Agent relationship there is no imputed or vicarious responsibility on the part of the answering OPs All these policies were subject to the terms and conditions hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is also alleged that the complainant has alleged the fact of cheating and fraud which cannot be adjudicated upon under the Consumer Protection Act

WS filed by OP-3

In the rejoinder it has been alleged by the complainant that the OP-1 & OP-2 have not challenged the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-3. Rest of the entire allegations have been denied.

Both the parties have filed on record their respective affidavits in evidence.

The OPs have taken the plea of limitation that the policies in question were purchased in me year 2008 and this complaint has been filed in the year 2011. This has been contested by the complainant Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhattacharya who drew our attention to the documents filed along with the affidavit of Mr. Vineet, Sr. Branch Manager of the OP. who has filed Electronic Payment Mandate of 12th September 2011 transferring the amount into the account of Smt. Sulakshana Bhattacharya response to her request for surrendering the money. Allegation in the complaint is that the amount of Fts 50.250/ could not be deducted by the OP and it is only after transferring the payment of balance amount into the account of the complainant that the cause of action had arisen as such the question of limitation do