Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/43/2019

Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Kapil - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Mann Adv.

21 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/43/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05/03/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Aegon Life Insurance Co. Limited, Regd. Office: Building No.3, Third Floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway Goregaon [E], Mumbai – 400063.

Branch Office: 2^nd Floor, SCO 407, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

Arvind Kapil S/o Rajinder Prasad Kapil (since deceased), through his legal heirs:-

1.     Saroj Kumari Sharma, Mother (aged 74 years).

2.     Rajinder Parsad Kapil, Father (aged 68 years).

Residents of H.No.1308, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

…… Respondent(s)

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA    MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. J.S. Mann, Counsel for the Appellant.
	:	None for the Respondent.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/44/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05/03/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Aegon Life Insurance Co. Limited, Regd. Office: Building No.3, Third Floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway Goregaon [E], Mumbai – 400063.

Branch Office: 2^nd Floor, SCO 407, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

 

Rajinder Kapil son of Sh. Raunki Ram, Resident of H.No.1308, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA    MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. J.S. Mann, Counsel for the Appellant.
	:	None for the Respondent.

 

[3]

Appeal No.	:	A/45/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05/03/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Aegon Life Insurance Co. Limited, Regd. Office: Building No.3, Third Floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway Goregaon [E], Mumbai – 400063.

Branch Office: 2^nd Floor, SCO 407, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

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

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA    MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. J.S. Mann, Counsel for the Appellant.
	:	None for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of three appeals i.e. A/43/2019, A/44/2019 and A/45/2019 filed by the Appellant/Opposite Parties, against the common order dated 11.01.2019, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh), vide which it partly allowed the three Consumer Complaints bearing No. CC/324/2017, CC/325/2017 and CC/327/2017, filed by the Complainant(s)/Respondent(s), qua Opposite Parties, by passing the following order: -

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.”

2.         Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, it was agreed, that facts involved in the above appeals, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from First Appeal No.43 of 2019 titled as “Aegon Life Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Arvind Kapil S/o Rajinder Prasad Kapil (since deceased), through his legal heirs.”
3.         The facts in brief are, allured by the green pastures projected by the representatives of the Appellant/Opposite Party, on taking their insurance policies, the Respondent/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 Respondent/Complainant at his postal address. It has been alleged that keeping in view the track record of the Appellant/Opposite Party, the Respondent/Complainant approached Appellant/Opposite Party a number of times and demanded the refund. However, the Appellant/ Opposite Party dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Respondent/ Complainant got served a legal notice dated 31.01.2017 upon the Appellant/Opposite Party to refund the principal amount, along with interest, but nothing has been done on the said legal notice. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant/Opposite Party.
4.         In the reply filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellant/Opposite Party pleaded that the Respondent/Complainant out of his own free will and consent applied for the insurance policy with the Appellant/Opposite Party. The Respondent/Complainant submitted duly filled and executed proposal form and the Appellant/Opposite Party accordingly issued policy which was duly received by the Respondent/Complainant on 28.10.2015. The Respondent/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 Respondent/Complainant did not opt the free look option. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellant/ Opposite Party have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
5.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. 
6.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
7.         On going through the entire documentary evidence placed before us, to our mind the Ld. District Commission has rightly allowed the above mentioned Complaints after examining the 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

 

4. 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:-
5.  

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.”

8.         Per material available on record, the action of the Appellants/Opposite Parties in not treating the case of the Respondent(s)/Complainant(s) as per the Regulation 7 (supra) tantamounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice. To our mind, Ld. District Commission has rightly held that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties could not charge any other charges, except those mentioned in Regulation 7 ibid.
9.         On the strength of Regulation 7 ibid, the Ld. District Commission has observed that since the Complainants/ Respondents in CC/324/017  had paid a single premium of Rs.1,18,000/- on 13.10.2015, he was entitled to get Rs.1,12,000/-.The Ld. District Commission, has, therefore, rightly directed the Appellants/Opposite Parties to make payment 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, along with compensation of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and harassment, besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, in CC/325/2017 an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.27,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-)  was ordered to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant against Policy No. 150314375321 and Rs.93,393/- (Rs.99,393/- minus Rs.6,000/-) against Policy No.150514404442, along with compensation of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. In the third case i.e. CC/327/2017, an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.24,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) was ordered to the Respondent/Complainant against Policy No.160114587096, as per above mentioned Regulation 7, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
10.         We thus incline to fall in line with the order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh so far as the payment on non- standard basis to the Complainant is concerned.
11.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.
12.         In our considered opinion, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned order passed by the District Commission-I, which is liable to be upheld and these appeals being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 
13.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Appeal No.44 of 2019 and Appeal No.45 of 2019.
14.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

21^st December, 2021   

Sd/- 

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”