Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/324/2017

Mr. Arvind Kapil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Somal

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/324/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2019

 

 

Arvind Kapil son of Sh. Rajinder Prasad Kapil, R/o H.No.1308, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1.  

 

2.  

  ... Opposite Parties

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/325/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2019

 

Rajinder Prasad Kapil son of Late Sh. Ronki Ram, R/o H.No.1308, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1.  

 

2.  

 

  ... Opposite Parties

 

[3]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/327/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2019

 

Ashwani Kapil son of Sh. Mohinder Prasad Kapil, Resident of H.No. 109, Shanti Nagar, Near Post Office Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1.  

 

2.  

 

  ... Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM: -             SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

                                    MRS.SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

                                    DR. S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER  

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Somal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. J.S. Mann, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER DR. S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

                    By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid three Consumer Complaints, filed by the respective Complainants. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 10.01.2019. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same.

2.           To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.324 of 2017 titled as Arvind Kapil Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited & Another.
3.           The facts in brief are that the allured by the green pastures projected by the representatives of the Opposite Parties, on taking their insurance policies, the Complainant had taken an insurance policy on 26.10.2015 with one time premium amount of Rs.1,18,000/- with an assurance of refund or reinvestment.  The policy was duly received by the Complainant at his postal address. It has been alleged that keeping in view the track record of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 a number of times and demanded the refund. However, the Opposite Parties dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 31.01.2017 upon the Opposite Parties to refund the principal amount, along with interest, but nothing has been done on the said legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
4.           Upon notice, reply was filed by the Opposite Parties, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the matter. It has been pleaded that the Complainant out of his own free will and consent applied for the insurance policy with the answering Opposite Parties. The Complainant submitted duly filled and executed proposal form and the answering Opposite Parties accordingly issued policy which was duly received by the Complainant on 28.10.2015. The Complainant had subscribed the aforesaid policy after being fully aware of the terms and conditions thereof.  It has been pleaded that as per the IRDA guidelines, in case of disagreement with any terms & conditions of the Policy, the insured/policyholder was at liberty to return the Policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy document. However, the Complainant did not opt the free look option. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
5.           In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments contained in the consumer complaint and rejected those contained in written reply of the opposite parties.
6.           The parties led evidence in supported of their case.
7.           We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
8.           The Counsel for Opposite Parties argued that the Complainant submitted duly filled proposal form along with first premium cheque, upon which the Opposite Parties issued policy, as per the guidelines issued by the IRDA, which was duly received by the Complainant. It has come on record that the Complainant had taken the Policy in question on 13.10.2015, which was issued by the Opposite Parties on 26.10.2015 and duly received by the Complainant on 28.10.2015 at his given postal address. 
9.           Learned Counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued that the policy in question as sold to the Complainant by the representatives of the Opposite Parties by twisting/misrepresenting the benefits contained therein. Thus, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties a number of times and also through legal notice to refund the premium paid, along with interest, but to no avail. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties urged that the Complainant is not entitled for any refund, in as much as, as per IRDA guidelines, the Complainant was at liberty to return the policy, along with a letter stating the reason for disagreement, within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy document. However, the Complainant did opt the free look option.
10.           However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, in the given situation, the Opposite Parties were bound to refund the premium as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010, as notified vide notification dated 1.7.2010,  Regulation 7 of which reads as under:-

“Obligation of an insurer upon discontinuation of a policy

7.    The obligation of an insurer in this regard shall be as follows:-

i.      To impose discontinuance charges only to recoup expenses incurred towards procurement, administration of the policy and incidental thereto.

ii.     To design the discontinuance charges to encourage the policyholder to continue with the contract for the full term;

iii.    To ensure that the discontinuance charges reflect the actual expenses incurred.

iv.    To structure the discontinuance charges within the statutory ceiling on commissions and expenses and

v.     To ensure that the charges levied on the date of discontinuance (as a percentage of one annualized premium) do not exceed the limits specified below:-

Where the policy is discontinued during the policy year	Maximum Discontinuance charges for policies having annualized premium up to and including Rs.25000/-	Maximum discontinuance charges for policies having annualized premium above Rs.25000/-
1	Lower of 20% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.3000/-	Lower of 6% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.6000/-
2	Lower of 15% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.2000/-	Lower of 4% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.5000/-
3	“Lower of 10% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.1500/-	Lower of 3% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.4000/-
4	Lower of 5% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.1000/-	Lower of 2% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.2000/-
5 and onwards	NIL	NIL

 Ap- Annualised premium

Fv- fund value on the date of discontinuance

Provided that where a policy is discontinued, only discontinuance charge may be levied by the insurer and no other charges by whatsoever name called shall be levied.

Provided that no discontinuance charges shall be imposed on single premium policies and on top ups.”

Thus, according to Regulation 7 extracted above, the Opposite Parties, could not charge any other charges, except those mentioned therein. Since the complainant paid a single premium of Rs.1,18,000/- on 13.10.2015, he was entitled to get Rs.1,12,000/- as per the Regulation 7 ibid, but Opposite Parties failed to pay the same. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties in not treating the case of the Complainant as per the Regulation 7 ibid, amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation on account of the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him by Opposite Parties, as they failed to pay him the amount, which was legally payable to him as per Regulation extracted above.

11.           In view of the above discussion, all the three consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. The Opposite Parties in all the three Consumer Complaints are directed as under directed as under:-

CC/324/2017:      Arvind Kapil Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another

1. To immediately pay the claim amount of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rs.1,18,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-) to the Complainant against Policy No.151014514411, as per above mentioned Regulation 7;
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

CC/325/2017:   Rajinder Prasad Kapil Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another

1. To immediately pay the claim amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.27,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-) to the Complainant against Policy No. 150314375321 and Rs.93,393/- (Rs.99,393/- minus Rs.6,000/-) against Policy No.150514404442, as per above mentioned Regulation 7;
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

CC/327/2017:      Ashwani Kapil Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another

1.           To immediately pay the claim amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.24,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) to the Complainant against Policy No.160114587096, as per above mentioned Regulation 7;
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

                    This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

11.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11/01/2019                                                                            

                                                                                         Sd/-

 (RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(DR. S.K. SARDANA)

MEMBER