Dr. Podila Jaya Sree Chowdary v. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd

(PER HONBLE SRI NIMMA NARAYANA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

1. The Complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay Rs.46,203/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of surrender of policy in 2009 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs.

2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she subscribed to the Mahalife Policy of the opposite party on 13.11.2004 and paid premiums @ Rs.8,240/- from 2004 to 2008 amounting to Rs.36,204/-. She however, stopped payment of the premiums thereafter, in view of personal and financial problems. She requested the opposite party to close the policy and return the amount paid by her towards premiums on surrender of policy. Inspite of several requests, the opposite parties have not paid the said amount. She therefore, got issued legal notice dated 04.05.2017. The opposite parties got issued reply notice dated 25.05.2017 admitting the payment of premiums by the complainant in 2008. They also reminded the complainant with regard to the renewal of the policy. But, the fact is that she did not receive any reminder notice. It is also stated by the opposite parties in the reply notice that the complainant is entitled for surrender value of Rs.5,818/- on making request to the opposite party. The complainant having paid Rs.46,204/- to the opposite parties towards premiums, is entitled for payment of the said amount along with the interest @ 18% per annum. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite parties filed written version opposing the complaint stating that it is barred by limitation and the complainant having failed to pay renewal premium subsequent to 2008 and having failed to pay premium for 12 years as per the terms and conditions of the policy, is not entitled for the payment of Rs.46,204/-. They further contended that the complainant is only entitled for the surrender value of Rs.6,816/-, if she makes request. Lastly, it is contended that this complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

4. The points for consideration are:- (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for payment of Rs.46,204/- as prayed for? (3) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for? (4) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? (5) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial the complainant got herself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Authorized Signatory of the opposite parties Sri P.B.Ganapathy, is examined as DW1. Ex.B1 to B10 are got marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Written arguments are filed by the complainant as well as the opposite parties. Heard both sides.

6. Point No.1 :- Admittedly the complainant subscribed to Mahalife Policy of the opposite party on 13.11.2004 and paid premiums @ Rs.8,240/- per annum, during the period from 2004 to 2008 amounting to Rs.46,204/-. She stopped payment of premiums thereafter. The complainant as PW1 deposed in her evidence that due to personal and financial problems she stopped payments of annual premiums. She also requested to close the policy and refund Rs.46,204/- paid by her towards premiums of the policy, vide legal notice under Ex.A2 dated 04.05.2017. DW1 deposed in his evidence that the policy obtained by the complainant lapsed for non-receipt of renewal premiums, insptie of issuing lapse notices under Ex.B7 and B8, the complainant failed to pay renewal premium and the policy lapsed. He further deposed that the complainant is entitled for surrender value on making a request to that effect as per the terms and conditions of Mahalife Policy, under Ex.B9. There is nothing terms and conditions of the policy to show that the complainant is entitled for the amount paid by her towards premiums on lapse of the policy. The reply notice under Ex.A3 to the legal notice under Ex.A2 is to the effect that the complainant did not respond to the lapse notices sent by the opposite parties and that the complainants policy has got surrendered value of Rs.6,816.78ps., which can be paid to him only if the complainant made request for the payment thereof. In view of the above there is therefore, no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, on account of non-payment of Rs.46,204/- paid by the complainant towards premiums. This point is accordingly, decided against the complainant.

7. Point No.2:- There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 to show that she surrendered the policy by making a request to pay the surrender value of the policy in writing. As per Ex.B9, terms and conditions of the policy the claimant is entitled for payment of surrender value provided premiums of the policy have been paid for atleast three consecutive years. No doubt, the complainant paid five premiums amounting to Rs.46,204/-, but she has not paid subsequent premiums. PW1 herself stated in her evidence that the payment term of the policy dated 13.11.2004 is 12 years. In other words, the complainant has not paid the balance seven premiums for the remaining seven years. The policy having been lapsed for non-payment of premiums after five years, the complainant is not entitled for surrender value of the policy or any amount whatsoever. The complainant is not eneittled for refund of Rs.46,204/-. This point is accordingly, decided.

8. Point No. 3 :- In view of finding on Point No.1, that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and costs. This point is accordingly decided against the complainant.

8. Point No.4:- Admittedly, the complainant subscribed to the Mahalife policy of the opposite parties on 13.11.2004 and paid Rs.46,204/- towards premium during the period from 2004-2008. Ex.A2 legal notice dated on 04.05.2017 was got issued to the opposite party to the effect that she stopped payment of annual premium. She also requested to close the policy and return Rs.46,204/- paid by her towards premiums. No correspondence was made by the complainant with the opposite parties from the date of payment of last premium in 2008 till the date of issuance of Ex.A2, on dated 04.05.2017. Its not the case that the complainant surrendered the policy and requested the opposite parties in wirting subsequent to the stoppage of payment of premium, to refund the amount paid by her towards premium and that her application is still pending. The cause of action in the instant case, can be said to have arisen from the date of payment of last premium in the year 2008. There is not even a whisper in the evidence of PW1, that she submitted application to the opposite party prior to 04.05.2017, requesting the opposite parties, to refund the amount paid by her. The cause of action having arisen in 2008 when the complainant paid the last premium, the filing of this complaint on 13.07.2017 is hit by limitation. The period of limitation for filing the complaint is two years, from the date on which the cause of action has arisen, as per section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint was filed nine years after the cause of action arose. In view of the above, this complaint is therefore barred by limitation as contended by the opposite parties. This point is accordingly decided in faovur of the opposite parties.