BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/ 298 of 27.4.2010 Decided on: 12.5.2011 Radha Rani Widow of Sh.Tulsa Ram resident of House No.3571/2,Dushala Mal Street, Sirhindi Bazar, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus Aviva Life Insurance Company India Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office at SST Nagar, Opposite Narain Hospital, Patiala through its Branch Manager. ----------Opposite party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Advocate For opposite party: Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased insurance policy No.LLG1206578 dated 28.2.2006 from the op. She had been making the payment of the premiums regularly upto 28.2.2007 but the op failed to pay the maturity amount. She is entitled to the payment of Rs.1,20000/- under the terms and conditions of the policy. The ops having failed to pay the same, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the op to make the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @12% and further to pay Rs.25000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by her and further she be awarded the costs of Rs.10000/- . 2. On notice the op appeared and filed the written version. It is the plea taken up by the op that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy vide proposal form No.UP10011811 dated 8.2.2006 for the sum assured of Rs.1,20000/-, the mode of the payment of the premium being half yearly and the value of the same being Rs.6000/-.The complainant was sent the policy documents which included the policy schedule “The right to reconsider” notice , copy of the proposal form, the standard terms and conditions and the first premium receipt. 3. It is further averred that the complainant had been paying the premiums for three policy years. As the 7th premium under the policy was not received from the complainant, the policy had acquired Paid- Up status on 15th April,2009. 4. It is further averred by the op that on 7th January 2010 after a lapse of 4 years of the commencement of the policy, the op received a complaint from the complainant alleging that she was assured by the agent that she will receive double the amount after three years of the commencement of the policy. The op replied the complainant vide letter dated 15 January 2010 that the policy was issued on the basis of the proposal signed by her and in case she was dissatisfied with any of the terms and conditions she should have requested for the cancellation of the policy as per the “right to reconsider” notice. It is denied if any maturity amount was payable to the complainant of the policy.As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled only to a surrender value after the commencement of the 3rd policy year to be calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The op did not receive any surrender request from the complainant. Ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. In support of her claim, the learned counsel for the complainant produced in evidence ,Ex.C1, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Smt.Radha Rani alongwith documents,Exs.C2 to C12. 6. On the other hand, on behalf of the op, its learned counsel produced in evidence the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of Mr.Gaurav Malhotra Manager(Legal) of the op alongwith documents Exs.R2 to R6 and closed the evidence. 7. The parties submitted the written arguments.We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence/record on the file. 8. At the time of the arguments, it was simply submitted by Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the complainant that the op be directed to make the payment of the value of the units, to have been purchased by the op with the help of the premiums to have been deposited by the complainant, it being a unit linked policy. 9. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Mayank Malhotra, the learned counsel of the op that in case the complainant wanted the payment of the units standing in her account she should have applied for the surrender of the policy, as provided under article 15 of the standard terms and conditions(Ex.R3) of the insurance policy. 10. It is provided under article 15.1 “Subject to Article 18, with effect from the commencement of the 3rd policy year, the policy holder is entitled to receive a surrender value upon termination of the insurance, provided that regular premiums have been paid for atleast two full policy years”. Article 15.2 provides, “The surrender value is equal to the surrender value of initial units, which is equal to the value of initial units less an early redemption charge determined at the time of surrender, and the value of all accumulation units in respect of regular premiums”.Article 15.3 provides in addition, on full surrender, the value of all accumulation units in respect of any additional single premium will be paid subject to Article 15.4”. Therefore, it would appear that there is a procedure prescribed under Article 15 for the payment of the surrender of the policy. 11. It is, no where the case of the complainant that she ever surrendered the policy to the op and made a request to pay the surrender value of the units. Therefore, we do no find any deficiency in service on the part of the op. A relief never having been asked for by the complainant can not be granted except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. To the contrary the complainant approached the Forum alleging that on her having deposited the premium upto 28.2.2009 she was entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.1,20000/- under the terms and conditions of the policy.As against the same, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C8, the copy of the complaint written by Chander Shekhar, son of the complainant that he and his mother were mis sold the policy as it was represented to them that they will have to deposit Rs.12000/- annually for three years and in the 4th year they will get the double the amount alongwith interest. Similarly a complaint was filed by the complainant and her son with the op on 7.1.2010, the copy of the same being,Ex.C9. The complainant was given the reply to the same by the op vide letter,dated 15.1.2010,Ex.R6. Any amount of evidence to have been led by the complainant beyond the pleadings, can not be looked into and rather it reflects upon the act and conduct of the complainant.May that as it be, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the op. It is however, observed that in case the complainant applies the op for the surrender of the policy as per the procedure, the op shall take the appropriate action as per the terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the application for the surrender of the policy. With these observations, the complaint is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:12.5.2011 Neelam Gupta Amarjit Singh Dhindsa D.R.Arora Member Member President
| Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | |