AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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:-
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.
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.
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.
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.
The second issue is whether the policy is covered by IRDA Regulations of 2005 or 2010. The Policy was issued on 27.05.2008. According to the Petitioner, the said Policy was received on 22.07.2008. The Respondents have not admitted that the Complainant received the Policy on 22.07.08. Every attempt to seek the original envelop in which the Policy dated 27.05.2008 was received, also did not yield any result. Adjournments were given to the Petitioner to file the original envelop to prove his contention that the Policy was received only on 24.07.2008, but in vain. The Complainants failed to avail the Free Look Option of 15 days, i.e., and did not pay the premium instalment due. The policy got lapsed and after the expiry of grace period for renewal, auto foreclosed the Policy and sent a cheque amounting to Rs.60,000/- in favour of the Petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner holds that the Respondents are bound by IRDA Regulation 2010. However, it is clear that IRDA Regulations 2005 would be applicable in the instant case, as the Policy was issued on 27.05.2008, prior to issue of 2010 Regulations. Regulations issued in 2010 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 2010 Regulation 1(2) runs as under:
"(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette and shall apply to all products of linked life insurance cleared by the Authority thereafter."
It is very clear that the 2010 Regulation is applicable only to the policies cleared by the Authority after 1st July 2010. This is clearly covered in the Judgment of this Commission in RP No. 2356 of 2013 dated 3.3.2014 and RP No. 2394 of 2013 dated 07.08.2014.
In view of the above, we do not find any 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 dismissed and order passed by the District Commission as well as the State Commission is confirmed. IA No. 12677/2016 and IA/12678/2016 also stand disposed off accordingly.