State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhdev Kaur vs Max New York Life Insurance Co. on 20 October, 2023
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.248 of 2018 Date of Institution: 27.02.2018 Date of Decision: 20.10.2023 Sukhdev Kaur aged about 42 years, widow of late Sh.Jasvinder Singh R/o Kachha Kila, Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. .....Appellant Versus 1. Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, operation center, 90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sector-18,Gurgaon through its Managing Director. 2. Axis Bank Limited, Branch Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. .....Respondents CORAM: S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr.D.S. Adlakha, Advocate alongwith Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for theappellant.
Mr.NiteshSinghi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 34 days is condoned.
2 The present appeal No.248 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short now "District Commission") in complaint case No.273 of 2013, which was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that husband of complainanthad purchased a life gain plus 20 participatingpolicyfrom the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The life assured husband of complainant had to deposit six annual premiums of Rs.10,000/- with the OP No.1. On 19.11.2010 The first premium of Rs.10,200/- was paid by the husband of the complainant at the time of taking of the policy. On 08.12.2011, the husband of the complainant deposited second premium of the policy. Unfortunately on 04.11.2012, the husband of the complainant, Jasvinder Singh met with a road side accident and died away on 06.11.2012. After this development, she lodged the claim with the OP and submitted required documents but OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.01.2013. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.
4 Notice being issued, OPsappeared and filed reply, submitting thaton 19.11.2010 the life assured obtained a policy "Max Life Gain Plus 20 participating plan in which sum assured was Rs.66,874/-. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.10,103.34 paise. On 14.10.2011, the OP sent a reminder to the life assured that the annual premium of the policy was due on 19.11.2011 and as the policy in question was on ECS mode, amount of Rs.10,154.85 paise will be deducted from his account on 23.11.2011. The OP videits letter informed him that ECS transaction for his policy, which was sent on draw date of 16.11.2011 for an amount of Rs.10,154.85 to the life assured account number, was dis-honoured due to insufficient balance.Even the earlier transaction had got dishonouredand another attempt to directly debit the premium through ECS was undertaken on 02.12.2011 and this time also, the transaction failed on account of "Insufficient Balance". On 17.01.2012, the intimation was sent to the life assured that above mentioned policy of the life assured got lapsed as the premium was not paid, even after expiry of the grace period of 30 days and the total amount due was Rs.10059.19.. On 27.12.2012, the OP received the intimation regarding death of life assured from the claimant. The policy stood lapsed on 19.11.2011. Since the policy was still in lapsed mode, the OP was unable to admit the death claim against the policy of life insured. So the claim was rightly and justifiably repudiated by the answering OP and same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 23.1.2013. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No.2 filed separate written statement and submitting that the answering OP has no concern with the OP No.1. Answering OP has provided the services of banking and OP No.1 provided the services of insurance. Rest of the allegations are denied.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagarhas dismissed the complaint vide order dated 08.12.2017.
7. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appealfor setting aside the impugned order.
8. These argumentswere advanced by Mr.D.S. Adlakha, Advocate alongwith Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for theappellant as well as Mr.NiteshSinghi, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire record of the appealas well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that life assured obtained insurance policy from the OP No.1 and during the subsistence of the insurance policy, her husband has expired therefore she was entitled for the insured amount.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the life insured has not paid the premium, even after expiry of the grace period of 30 days got lapsed. At the time of death of the life assured i.e. on 06.11.2012, the policy was in lapsed condition. The OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant through letter dated 23.01.2013.
11. This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Perusal of the file shows that at the time of death of DLI, the policy was in lapsed mode. Since the policy was in lapsed mode at the time of death of DLI, the complainant-appellant was not entitled for the claim amount. Even as per terms and conditions of the policy, the DLI did not deposit the premium, which became due on 19.11.2011. Since the ECS transaction was dis-honoured twice and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was not entitled for the claim amount. Learned District Commission has rightly dismissedthe complaint.
12. Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
13. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.
14. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
20th October, 2023 S. P. Sood Judicial Member S.K(Pvt. Secy.)