Delhi

East Delhi

CC/153/2015

Seema Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIAV LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 153/2015

 

Ms. Seema Singh

W/o Mr. Sunil Kumar

196, Prakash Industrial estate

Sahibabad – 201 005                                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.

         

M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

2^nd Floor, Prakash Deep Building

7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 001                                  …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 05.03.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 20.02.2020

Judgement Passed on: 28.02.2020

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Ms. Seema Singh against M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), praying for direction to OP to pay an amount of Rs. 99,467/- alongwith interest @24% from 01.02.2011 till date of actual payment,       Rs. 10,259/- as interest on part payment of Rs. 14,249/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one insurance plan “Life Long-Unit Link”, vide policy No. NLG1234817 for Rs. 5,40,000/-, date of commencement being 31.03.2006.  The complainant paid two annual premium of Rs. 54,000/- each to respondent, but could not pay subsequent premiums due to paucity of funds. 

It has been stated that the said policy was sold by the agent of respondent stating it to be good for saving purpose, but her subsequent request for refund was declined by respondent.  Thereafter, consumer complaint bearing no. 1002/2011 was filed before this Forum where by order dated 27.10.2014, the respondent was directed to dispose of the claim of the complainant with a speaking order within 45 days.  On filing of execution petition no. 3/15 titled as “Seema Singh vs. Aviva Life Insurance”, the respondent handed over a letter dated 06.01.2015 alongwith cheque no. 493620 dated 11.12.2014 for Rs. 14,249/-. 

It has been stated by the complainant that as per letter dated 06.01.2015, the fund value was Rs. 1,13,716/-, but after deductions complainant was paid Rs. 14,249/-, stating it to be in accordance with policy terms and conditions.  Thus, respondent had paid short of Rs. 99,467/-.

The complainant has annexed copy of policy schedule as Annexure    C-1, copy of the order dated 27.10.2014 in Complaint Case No. 1002/2011 as Annexure C-2, copy of the letter dated 06.01.2015 alongwith cheque as Annexure C-3.

3.       Reply on behalf of respondent was filed upon service of the summons, where in they have taken several pleas in their defence such as complaint was barred by the principle of resjudicata; the complainant had accepted the surrender value towards the satisfaction of execution, thus, it was in full and final settlement.  It was submitted that the complainant being an advocate by profession, should have been diligent.  All the features had been explained to the complainant at the time of filling of the proposal form dated 24.03.2006, thus, the complainant was bound by the declaration and authorization. 

          It was further submitted that the issues involved had been adjudicated on merits in CC No. 110/2011 and the claim of the complainant had been disposed of as per the order of this Forum.  The respondent have also stated that the complainant failed to exercise the option of free look period, thus, was bound by the terms and conditions.  The cheque in compliance of the order had been dispatched to the complainant’s address, which was returned undelivered.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

          Special Power of Attorney was annexed as Annexure R-1, order in execution petition no. 3/15 dated 24.02.2015 was annexed as Annexure    R-2, proposal form dated 24.03.2006 as Annexure R-3, key features of the policy as Annexure R-4, standard terms and conditions as Annxure R-5, postal receipt as Annexure R-6 and letter for right to reconsider as Annexure R-7 with the reply.

4.       Rejoinder was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the reply were denied and contents of the complaint were reiterated.  It is submitted that cheque had been accepted by the complainant reserving her right to re-agitate the claim.

5.       Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of both the parties where the complainant has got examined herself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and relied on the Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-3, annexed with the complaint.

          Shri Bhuwan Bhashkar, Attorney of respondent, was examined who has also deposed on oath the contents of their reply and has got exhibited Power of Attorney (Ex.RW-1/1), copy of the execution dated 24.02.2015 (Ex.RW-1/2), copy of the proposal form and key features documents (Ex.RW-1/3 & 1/4), copy of the standard terms and conditions (Ex.RW-1/5), proof of delivery and right to reconsider notice (Ex.RW-1/6 & 1/7) respectively.

6.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for respondent and have perused the material placed on record.  Firstly, deciding upon the preliminary objection regarding the complaint being barred by principle of resjudicata, if we look at the order dated 27.10.2014, passed by this Forum, wherein the respondent has been directed to dispose of the claim of the complainant with speaking order, the Complaint Case No. 1002/2011 was not decided on merits.  Therefore, the present complaint is not barred by the principle of resjudicata.

          Further, as per Ex.RW-1/2 which is the execution order dated 24.02.2015, the complainant had accepted the cheque, reserving her right to re-agitate her right to claim.  Letter dated 06.01.2015 has been placed on record giving the detailed calculation with respect to the claim of the complainant.  Reading of the same reflects that the date of surrender has been considered as 09.12.2014, whereas in the complaint as per order dated 27.10.2014, the complainant had requested for withdrawal of the amount on 28.04.2011, thus, the date of surrender should have been taken as 28.04.2011 and not 09.12.2014.  Thus, the charges deducted as per article 20 of the terms and conditions should have been till 28.04.2011.   Therefore, we direct OP to consider the date of surrender as  28.04.2011 and pay the amount to the complainant.

          Once, the complainant has surrendered her policy on 28.04.2011, OP has taken the date of surrender as 09.12.2014, which is not only arbitrary, but unfair trade practice which has caused mental agony and pain to the complainant.  Hence, she is also entitled to compensation of           Rs. 15,000/- on that account. 

          This order be complied within a period of 30 days of receipt of order.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                             Member 

  

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

           President