DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).
C. C. No.15 of 2016
Instituted On: 02.02.2016
Decided On: 02.12.2016
Sukhdarshan Singh son of Roorh Singh R/o Village Thandewala near Barkandi Road, Tehsil & District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.......... Complainant.
Versus
1.Aviva Life Insurance, Aviva Life Insurance Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Gilf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122003 through its Managing Director.
2.Aviva Life Insurance, SCO No.180,182, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.
3.Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Thandewala, through its Branch Manager, Village Thandewala, Tehsil & District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
..........Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.
Quorum: Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, President.
Smt. Meenakshi, Member.
Smt.Mandeep Kaur, Member
Present: Sh.Sukhmander Singh Brar Advocate for Complainant.
Sh.VK Goyal Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh.Gautam Arora Advocate for OP No.3.
ORDER
KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.37504/- i.e. Rs.19,610/- as principle amount and Rs.17,894/- as interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of amount i.e. 17.12.2011 till its realization which was paid by the complainant in the policy No.TDW3063864 dated 17.1.2011 with opposite parties; to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment so suffered by the complainant; to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service; to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that in the month of December 2010 the father of the complainant was in need of money. For this purpose he contacted with branch manager of OP No.3 with intention to mortgage his land with his branch. As per the instructions of OP No.3, the complainant and his father completed all the formalities and mortgage their land with OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- and a rapat No.275 dated 29.12.2012 was entered in revenue record of village Thandewala. The complainant and his father being rustic and illiterate village. At the time of releasing amount one Malkeet Singh was branch manager of OP No.3 and the complainant was under his influence. At that time OPs No.3 & 4 told the complainant and his father that as per the instructions of their head office, the purchasing of Aviva Life Insurance is mandatory. At time, the OPs also told that in case they purchased a policy in dispute and one time premium, the policy holder/complainant will receive double of the amount after the period of five years. On the assurance and asking of OPs, a policy in dispute was purchased in the name of complainant. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.19,610/- as fix deposit and at that OPs assured that he would get double of the said amount after the expiry of period of five years i.e. 16.1.2016 as well as death benefit and disease benefit. At that time the complainant or his father has no financial capacity to invest the amount in any policy. He purchased the policy under the influence of OPs No.3 & 4. At that time, the OPs No.3 & 4 obtained the signature of complainant on various blank papers at village Thandewala. But the complainant did not receive the policy documents. At that time, the complainant demanded the policy documents but the same was not supplied to him. They only gave policy and asked to wait till 16.1.2016. Beside this the OP also received an amount of Rs.30,000/- (about) for which they did not given any receipt and now the complainant is verifying about that also. As per assurance of OPs, after the expiry of due dated i.e. 16.1.2016, when the complainant demanded his amount alongwith benefits as agreed, but the OPs are denying the same without any reason. At that time OP refused to refund the amount by saying that premium was payable annually for the period of 10 years and date of maturity of policy is 17.1.2016. Complainant never purchased such a long policy. The complainant requested to the OPs for number of times to refund the amount alongwith interest and pay compensation and litigation expenses but the OPs always linger on the matter and finally refused to exceed the request of the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant has filed the present complainant seeking relief mentioned above.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed written replies. In its written reply, OPs No.1 & 2 pleaded that the complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because there is not a single allegation which leads the replying opposite party to either deficiency of service or that of any unfair trade practice, but simply averments have been made of not paying for policy of the complainant, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant himself welling to show to purchase Life Insurance Policy of the opposite party and for this he approached the advisor of the opposite party and the complainant got the entire information regarding all the plans of the opposite party and thereafter, after understanding all the terms and conditions of all the plans only thereafter he opted to purchase a Aviva Dhan Vriddhi Life Insurance Policy of opposite party. For this, the complainant filled the proposal form No.NUP14116269 on 10.1.2011 and at the time of filling the above said proposal form, the complainant opted to pay Rs.19,610/- as premium against the sum assured of Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant opted the terms of the plan as 15 years and premium paying term as 10 years and premium frequency yearly. After receiving the proposal form and going through the entire contents of the proposal form, the underwriters of the policy, had issued the insurance policy bearing No.TDW3063864 to the complainant and sent the policy documents alongwith all the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant on the given address and the same was duly received by the complainant and the same is in his possession. It is further submitted that there is provided a Free Look Period option i.e. the policyholder have the right to review the policy terms and conditions and cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents but the complainant did not do so. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Other allegations of the complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In its separate written reply, OP No.3 pleaded that the OP No.3 i.e. Bank is not in the business of insurance and it can not carry on insurance business as its business in confined to what is listed out in Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Bank's role is only as a facilitator/referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. OPs No.1 & 2. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant and the bank to claim the insurance from the bank and as such the complaint can not be filed against the OP No.2 i.e. Bank and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.
6. Complainant counsel Sh.Sukhmander Singh tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, photocopy of account statement of account No.450 in the name of Roor Singh Ex.C2, photocopy of account statement of account No.5045 in the name of Roor Singh Ex.C3, photocopy of account statement of account No.5046 in the name of complainant Ex.C4, Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 Ex.C5 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant.
7. Sh.VK Goyal Advocate for OPs N.1 & 2 tendered photocopy of proposal form Ex.OP1&2/1, photocopy of sales information report Ex.OP1&2/2, photocopy of premium quotation and illustration Ex.OP1&2/3, photocopy of IMNC declaration by BOPs Ex.OP1&2/4, photocopy of passport of Sukhdarshan Singh Ex.OP1&2/5, photocopy of set of possible signatures Ex.OP1&2/6, photocopy of insurance plan Aviva Dhan Vriddhi Ex.OP1&2/7, affidavit of Arindam Mishra, Authorized Signatory of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited Ex.OP1&/8 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2. Further Sh.Gautam Arora Advocate for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Jaswant Singh Bedi, Branch Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Thandewala Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.
9. Complainant counsel Sh.Sukhmander Singh Brar argued that complainant Sukhdarshan Singh was in need of money to mortgage his land for a sum of Rs.4,45,000/-. Against that sum rapat No.275 dated 29.12.2012 was entered in the revenue record of the village Thandewala in favour of OP No.3. At that time OPs No.3 & 4 allured the complainant for the deposit of premium and for the purchase of policy with the assurance whatsoever the amount deposited that shall stand refund double after five years. The complainant agreed and deposited Rs.19,610/- in fixed deposit with the OP. After expiry of five years i.e. On 16.1.2016 the complainant approached to the OP for the payment to refund. Hence this complaint. Learned counsel also argued that when sufficient evidence has come on filing and with the assurance of OPs, complainant invested Rs.19,610/- then the complaint deserves to be allowed, OPs to be directed to make the payment of Rs.37,504/- i.e. Rs.19,610/- principle and Rs.17,894/- interest with costs because the deficiency on the part of the OP stand fully established.
10. Sh.V.K.Goyal learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 argued that complainant purchased policy of life insurance and if within period of five years the occurrence took place then what will be the understanding for compensation either to the complainant or to his legal heirs. He has to deposit Rs.19,610/- yearly and if the premium stand deposit regularly for plan as 10 years then sum assured for Rs.1,40,000/-. Complainant did not deposit the second/third installment(premium) then now the policy stand elapsed and complaint deserves to be dismissed because complainant remain unable in proving the deficiency on the part of the OPs.
11. Sh.Gautam Arora learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that the dealing, issuance of policy and payment of premium is between the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2. OP No.3 is Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Thandewala. Qua the dealing between the parties, OP No.3 has no concern, if while siting in the bank of OP No.3. Complainant and OPs No.1 & 2 had the dealing then OP No.3 can not be involved in any way. Lastly, prayed to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.3.
12. Before coming to the controversy, the Forum has firstly to decide whether complainant is the consumer and complaint is maintainable? Complainant in support of his claim has placed on file his sworn affidavit Ex.C1, receipt Ex.C2 vide which there is payment of Rs.19,400/- dated 10.1.2011 then place on file another receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 dated 9.4.2011. Besides this, complainant not adduced any evidence but at the same time OPs No.1 & 2 place on file proposal form Ex.OP1&2/1 then policy Ex.OP1&2/7. So deposit of Rs.19,610/- by the complainant with the OPs No.1 & 2 are the admitted fact. It is also admitted that Rs.19,610/- was deposited as premium. However, in the complaint the complainant alleged that said amount was deposited with the OPs No.1 & 2 on the basis of assurance to refund its double after five years. At the same time, OPs has placed sufficient evidence qua the deposit of premium. In this way, if oral submission of complainant is considered qua the allegation of fraud then complaint is not maintainable but the documentary evidence like receipt, policy and proposal form proves the relation between the parties as consumer. So complaint before this Forum is maintainable.
13. Coming to the real controversy whether the complaint deserves to be allowed and there is deficiency on the part of OPs or not? Where perusal of the complaint, it shows that complainant demanded for the refund of Rs.37,504/- on the ground that OPs received the premium that he will receive double of the amount after the period of five years. At the same time, complainant pleaded that after expiry of five years he requested for payment but OP refused.
14. At the same time, it be appreciated but the OPs No.1 & 2 has taken stand. Ex.OP1&2/1 is the proposal forum signed by Sukhdarshan Singh and this proposal forum proves that life of Sukhdarshan Singh was insured. Ex.OP1&2/3 is the chart qua the deposit of premium regularly @ Rs.19,610/- continuously for a period of 10 years then benefit was to be extended after 15 years and it was also asked that in case between the said period if any occurrence took place then life of complainant was insured against sum Rs.1,40,000/-. Ex.OP1&2/5 to Ex.OP1&2/6 strengthened the OP version. Ex.OP1&2/7 is the policy of Aviva Company and in its relevant clause 4(c)(i) and (a) there is recital if premium not received in due date or within the grace period then policy will be deemed to have automatically elapsed without any value and no benefit will be payable. Further more, in clause 5 of the policy, there is recital qua surrender value. Relevant portion 5(a) reproduced as under:-
“At the commencement of fourth (4th) policy year , the policy will acquire a surrender value if you have paid all premium due for the first three(3) policy years”.
15. Besides the documentary evidence, OPs No.1 & 2 tendered sworn affidavit of Sh.Arindam Mishra, Authorized Signatory of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited as Ex.OP1&2/8 who supported the claim of OPs No.1 & 2. Sh.Gautam Arora counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Jaswan Singh Bedi, Branch Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank,Branch Thandewala as Ex.OP3/1 in accordance to the written reply.
16. This Forum appreciated the documentary evidence and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, finally has come to the conclusion that complainant purchased policy against life risk and deposited the premium Rs.19,610/- for the first year thereafter stopped depositing the premium. The policy gave guidelines, if premium deposited continuously for a period of three years then insured person entitled for the surrendered value. If there is brake after depositing first premium then the policy shall stand elapsed. Further, there is a recital, if premium deposited continuously for a period of ten years but no occurrence took place then entitled to get back refund of Rs.1,40,000/-. So, neither claim of the complainant covered under the surrendered value nor under the full payment after 10 or 15 years. The complainant remain failed in proving deficiency on the part of OPs. Whereas OP No.3 is bank and has no direct link with the contesting party. In this way, complaint is without merit.
17. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.
Dated: 02.12.2016.
(Mandeep Kaur) (Meenakshi) (Karnail Singh Ahhi)
Member Member President
