DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.54/2009
Mrs. Namarta Sharma
C-155, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi-110017
….Complainant
Versus
Mr. Kunal Anand
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V
Hansalya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V
Hansalya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi
(The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V formerly known as ABN AMRO Bank N.V.)
Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited
2nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg
New Delhi-110001
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 20.01.2009
Date of Order : 09.11.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing Kunal Anand, ABN Amro Bank NV and Aviva Life Insurance India Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP-1, OP-2 & OP-3 respectively) (i) to return the premium paid i.e Rs. 49,000/- to OP-3 by the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each from all OPs towards harassment & mental agony; (iii) to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost by all OPs; (iv) to cancel the insurance agency of OP-2 for misrepresentation.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant was sold fraudulently and wrongly a life insurance policy under the name of Fixed Deposit. Thereafter, the Complainant was not allowed to withdraw the policy and refused the return of the money. The OP-2 is a bank and provides banking services for fee. OP-1 is an employee of OP-2. OP-3 is a life insurance company and was provided a licence under Insurance Regulatory Development Authority to sell the insurance to general public. OP-2 is an agent of OP-3. The Complainant wanted to credit Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- with OP-2 for her daughters marriage in future and visited the officer of OP-2 on October 21, 2008. OP-1 informed her that there is a new Fixed Deposit Scheme under which she need not deposit the amount in one go instead she can make payment of Rs.49,000/- each year for 3 years. Under the scheme she will also get life insurance cover. It was also told that the said scheme is available with OP-2 only. Believing that OP-1 is an employee of OP-2 and signed the Fixed Deposit Form. OP-1 assisted her in filing up the said form.
3. The Complainant gave Rs.50,000/- to OP-1 out of which the OP-1 deposited Rs.49,000/- in the name of fixed deposit vide DD No.764176 dated 21.10.2008. The Complainant went back home and kept waiting for the delivery of Fixed Deposit Certificate. When she did not receive the same, she contacted OP-1 who in turn assured her to receive it shortly. She received an envelope on November 03, 2008 containing a life insurance policy under the name “LifeSaver Plus” bearing Policy No. ALS2210353 commencing from October 27, 2008, of OP-3. Copy of the Insurance Policy is annexed as Annexure C/1.
4. After sometime, some guests who visited her house and on going through these policy papers, they told that she had been deceived as she has been sold a Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP) of the OP-3 under the name of new Fixed Deposit Scheme with Life Insurance Cover. Upon this, she immediately called up OP-1 and inquired about fixed deposit certificate. She was told that the documents what had been received, are only documents to have been received as she had opted for this scheme only. The Complainant was shocked to hear this from OP-1. She met Branch Manager but nothing was done to redress the grievance. The amount of Rs.49,000/- deposited for making D.D No. 764176 dated 21.10.2008 for purchase of ULIP. The duration of ULIP was for 15 years whereas, the Complainant wanted 03 years fixed deposit. Some fund was to be used in equity share and related instruments. She never wanted this kind of scheme. She wrote to OP-3 to cancel the insurance policy and refund the amount. Copy of same is annexed as Annexure C/2. She was informed by OP-3 that her case is being investigated and they would get back to her shortly. Copy of letter is annexed as Annexure C/3. OP-3 again informed her stating that “your right to reconsider” option expired as 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents, had expired till then. Copy is annexed as Annexure C/4.
5. It was also maintained that Premium Allocation charges for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd year under the policy are mentioned as Rs.19,600/-, Rs.12,250/- and Rs.2,450/- respectively on a premium of Rs.49,000/- per year. It was unlawful gain for OP-2 as major portion of it shall go to OP-2. OP-3 refused to return the amount as the “ your right to reconsider option” on the ground that 15 days period of Re-look had exceeded by 3 days. OP-3 could have condoned the delay of 03 days.
6. OP-1 & OP-2, on the other hand, filed written statement inter-alia raising preliminary objections. The Complainant does not come under definition of “Consumer” as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint requires to be dismissed if, at all there is any deficiency of service, the same is due to the alleged acts and inacts of the OP-3. It may not be out of place to mention here that proposal form bearing No.NUP11439839 was submitted by the Complainant with OP-3. The Complainant after accepting the terms & conditions of the policy accepted the policy in question. At the time of issuance of the policy, OP-3 provided the policy schedule and standard terms & Conditions to the Complainant. OP-3 repudiated the request of Complainant for refund of amount deposited with OP-3, OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the allegations made by Complainant are totally false, baseless and to lower the reputation of OP-2 in the eyes of general public. It was also averred that the Complainant voluntarily and out of her own volitions accepted the life insurance policy of Aviva Life Insurance of OP-3. A sum of Rs.2,45,000/- was the amount assured to the Complainant. It is denied that the Complainant gave Rs.50,000/- to OP-1 as alleged.
7. OP-3 filed its reply to the complaint and also raised some preliminary objections. It is averred that the instant complaint lacks a cause of action. The complaint is based on surmises and conjectures. As required under IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002, the terms & conditions of policy provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days; during which, the policy holder is entitled to review the policy and requests for cancellation if dissatisfied with terms & conditions of the policy. It was asserted by OP-3 on 21st November, 2008 when the case fall out of the purview of Free look period of 15 days, the request of the complainant cannot be considered. The Complainant filled up the Proposal Form dated 21.10.2008 for a “LifeSaver Plus” Plan for assured sum of Rs.2,45,00/- and a premium of Rs.49,000/- was to paid annually. The copy of Proposal Form is attached as Annexure OP/3. The policy documents were delivered on 30.10.2008. The requests of complainant for mis-selling the policy under the pretext of Fixed Deposit was received on 21.11.2008, that is after 21 days from the date of policy. The copy of said letter is annexed as Annexure OP-3. On investigation, it was found by OP-3 that there was no mis-selling of the policy as alleged by Complainant.
8. All the parties filed written submissions and evidence-in affidavit. Written Statements of OPs are on record so are rejoinders. Oral arguments were heard & concluded.
9. OP-1 & OP-2 moved an application under Order 22 Rule10 read with Section 151 of CPC for amending the name of the OP-2-Bank i.e ABN Amro Bank N.V to The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. The Commission after considering the application, allowed the above amendment. It is also noted that the OPs were declared exparte but on cost. The exparte order was reverted by this Commission vide order dated 07.05.2010.
10. This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues. Due consideration was given to the oral arguments. All the parties except OP-3 filed written arguments. However, it is found mentioned vide order dated 28.01.2013 of this Commission that “ written arguments are already filed by OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3”. But this Commission could not locate the written arguments of OP-3. But the counsel for OP-3, Sh. P.V Raghunandan was present on the date of final arguments. He addressed arguments before this Commission. It is alleged by Complainant that the OP-1 & OP-2 had mis-sold the policy under reference. It is on record that as per Proposal Form dated 21.10.2008 clearly states under Para 5 as under-
5.1 Name of the Plan……………. Life Saver Plus
5.2 Term of the Plan in years……. 15 years.
5.3 Premium Paying Term in Years…15 years.
5.4 Annual Premium.………………Rs49,000/-
5.6 Sum Assured…………………Rs.2,45,000/-
11. The Complainant also alleged that she was not briefed properly by OP-1 while selling the policy. It would be relevant to mention here that she has declared herself as graduate in the said Proposal Form. The same has been exhibited here. It is very difficult to palate this arguments/averments of the Complainant that she was mis-sold the policy by OP-1 & OP-2.
12. This Commission also examined the averments of the Complainant to this effect that she had informed the OP-3 vide its letter dated 21.11.2008 for cancellation of the policy. The OP-3 responded vide its letter dated 02.12.2008 stating that the matter is under investigation. Further, the OP-3 vide its letter dated 08.12.2008 repudiated her request. It was further stated by OP-3 that as required under IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests) Regulation, 2002, the Policy terms & condition specifically provides for a Free look period for 15 days, during this period the Policy holder is entitled to review said policy’s terms & conditions and requests for cancellation, if he/she is dissatisfied with policy terms & conditions. As mentioned above, the Complainant approached the company on 21.11.2008 when the case fell out of the purview of the Free look period of 15 days as policy documents were received by her on 03.11.2008. The proof of delivery (PoD) is also annexed as evidence by the OP-3.
13. In nutshell, after having considered the scope of terms & conditions of the Policy under reference and Proposal Form as explained above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the OPs are not found short of obligation. Hence, no deficiency in service & negligence is found on the part of the OP-3. In view of these observations, the complaint fails and the requests so made therein are also rejected.
No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
