Punjab

Sangrur

CC/236/2015

Rani Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva LIC Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. Amit Kumar Bhalla

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    236

                                                Instituted on:      24.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       08.09.2015

 

Rani Kaur wife of Malkiat Singh, resident of Village Namol, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Head Office; AVIVA Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

2.     Centurion Bank of Punjab now merged into HDFC Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Rani Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 12.3.2007, she obtained a policy bearing number LPG1489459 for Rs.2,50,000/- from OP number 1 by paying the single premium instalment of Rs.50,000/-. It is further averred that OP number 1 assured the complainant that after expiry of five years i.e. maturity of policy, the complainant would get Rs.2,50,000/- along with all other benefits. It is further averred that the said policy was obtained through OP number 2.  It is further averred that after the date of maturity, the complainant in the month of October, 2012 approached the OP number 1 and requested to release the maturity amount and it was told to come after 2/3 days, but nothing was paid despite visiting the complainant to OP number 1 so many times even in April 2013, June, 2013, November 2013 and January 2014. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased Life Bond Plus Unit Linked Plan of the OP number 1 after filling the proposal form on 19.1.2007 and deposited Rs.50,000/- as single premium with sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and term of the plan was five years. It is further stated that the complainant also signed the proposal form  after understanding its terms and conditions. It has been stated that the complainant never approached the OP number 1 for getting the maturity value and failed to submit the required documents.  However, it has been stated that the OP number 1 is ready to release the maturity value of the policy, if the complainant submits the documents such as original policy document, maturity payout form, cancelled cheque and pre printed name or copy of pass book or latest six months statement duly attested by bank of payee. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant never visited OP number 2 for release of the sum insured as alleged.  However, it has been stated that the maturity amount has to be released by OP number 1 only and not by Op number 2. However,  any deficiency in service on the part of OP number  2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of first premium receipt, Ex.C-2 copy of proposal form and Ex.C-3 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Op number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1/2 copy of deposit slip, Ex.OP1/3 copy of declaration, Ex.OP1/4 copy of cheque dated 19.1.2007, Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/7 copies of ID proofs, Ex.OP1/8 copy of declaration, Ex.OP1/9 copy of information, Ex.OP1/11 copy of declaration, Ex.Op1/11 copy of detail of proof, Ex.OP1/12 to Ex.OP1/14 copies of letters, Ex.OP1/15 copy of detail of proposal, Ex.OP1/16 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP1/17 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant took a policy bearing number LPG1489459 of Rs.50,000/- from OP number 1 through OP number  2 on 12.3.2007 as is evident from the copy of the first premium receipt which is on record as Ex.C-1. The copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-1 also shows that the complainant was insured for Rs.2,50,000/- during the policy period of five years and the maturity date of the policy was 12.3.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 despite maturity of the policy on 12.3.2012 has failed to make the payment despite best efforts of the complainant and thus has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant never approached OP number 1 for maturity value because she never submitted any required documents for processing the same.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has submitted that the amount was not paid as the complainant failed to submit the original policy document, maturity payout form, cancelled cheque with pre printed name or copy of pass book or latest six  months statement.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OP number 1 that the complainant did not submit the required documents, as the OP number 1 has not even produced even a single letter asking the complainant to submit such documents for release of the maturity amount. It is undisputed fact on record that the policy of the complainant matured on 12.3.2012 and the due amount of the policy on that date i.e. 12.3.2012 was Rs.56,388/- as is evident from the affidavit of Shri Bhuwan Bhashker, authorised signatory, Aviva Life Insurance company Limited, Ex.OP1/3.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint as well as in her affidavit that the maturity value of the policy was/is Rs.2,50,000/- and as such has claimed the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. But, it is made clear as is evident from the first premium receipt Ex.C-1 that the sum assured under the policy was Rs.2,50,000/- and not it was the maturity value, whereas the maturity value was payable as per the unit price of any investment fund which may increase or decrease as per the performance of the financial markets.  As such, we feel that the OP number 1 has rightly mentioned the maturity value of the policy i.e. Rs.56,388/- in the affidavit Ex.OP1/17.  But, the OP number 1 has withheld this amount of Rs.56,388/- after the maturity date i.e. 12.3.2012 without any rhyme or reason, which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.56,388/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 12.03.2012 till realisation.  We further order the Op number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-  in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 8, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member