BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 66

Date of Institution : 15.3.2010

Date of Decision : 10.9.2010

Prabhjot Kaur daughter of Sh. Kaur Singh, resident of Muktsar Road, Kotkapura now wife of S. Gurinder Singh, r/o Near Senior Secondary School, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar, near Baldev Motor Works, Main Road, Muktsar.

...Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Co., Faridkot

2. Aviva Life Insurance, 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001, through its Director.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. G.S. Sandhu counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Amrit Bansal counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties due to failure of the opposite parties to pay the amount of Insurance Policy to the complainant vide insurance policy No. WTG1415766 and for directing the opposite parties to make payment of the above said insurance claim alongwith interest till realization and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that about 3 years back in the month of December, 2006 the representative of the opposite parties namely Ruchi came to the house of the complainant at Kotkapura when the complainant was unmarried and the said person had convinced the complainant to purchase a policy of Aviva and told that there are so many benefits of the said policy and the amount of the complainant will be doubled in three years and got the signatures of the complainant on blank papers/forms, without telling about the contents of the same and without allowing her to read the said documents and received Rs. 10,000/- in cash from the complainant as 1^st installment of the said policy and thereafter the company of the opposite parties issued a policy bearing no. WTG1415766 to the complainant and thereafter in the month of January, 2008 the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- more as 2^nd installment and after that the complainant in the month of January 2009 deposited 3^rd installment of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the company against the said policy. In this way, the complainant has already deposited Rs. 30,000/- with the company of the opposite parties. Now the complainant has married at Muktsar and she and her husband are unemployed and have no source of income. There was a need of money and complainant approached the office of the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of the said policy as agreed by the opposite parties but they have refused to make the payment of the said policy alongwith the interest thereon. The complainant had tried to give the opposite parties the written request for making the payment but the opposite parties did not receive/accept the request of the complainant and lingered on the matter under one pretext or other. She also sent a registered notice to the opposite party on 15.1.2010 but without any result, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has made the investment by his own free will without any sort of pressure, coercion or misrepresentation. The opposite party had issued the policy on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant. In the policy it is clearly stated that consumer 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 document. If he/she cancels his/her policy the premium he/she have paid will be refunded after adjusting for adverse movement in unit prices less charges incurred on account of stamp duty and medical expenses, if any. The complainant had the option to review and seek refund of the premium if she disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. The Unit Linked product/policy are Market linked policies and are dependent on the market fluctuations, the investment risk is borne by the policyholder. The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of limitation as the complainant has filled the proposal form on 18^th December, 2006 and she has for the first time approached the opposite party vide legal notice dated 15^th January, 2010, so the complainant had for the first time had complained after a lapse of more than 3 years. The complainant was issued a Life Long Unit Linked Templated policy bearing number WTG1415766 on 28^th December, 2006 on the basis of proposal form and declaration made thereunder. Thereafter, the complainant paid 2 regular premiums of Rs. 10,000/- each under the policy without any dispute. On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever approached the opposite party with any complaint before sending a legal notice in January, 2010. The complainant has continued to enjoy the benefits of Life insurance for more than 3 years and is now alleging mis-selling only due to fall in markets as the policy is Unit Linked and the value is dependent on the market. The opposite party was not bound to refund the entire premium to the policyholder. The complainant is only entitled to the surrender value under the policy. The complainant never approached the opposite party even to take the surrender value. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, legal notice dated 15.1.2010 Ex.C-7, postal receipts Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, copy of receipt dated 4.1.2008 Ex.C-10 and closed her evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Malhotra Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that though the complainant was allured to purchase policy in question with a promise that to release the deposited amount with interest after three years but failed to keep the said promise despite verbal and written request made by the complainant in this behalf which tantamounts to deficiency on their part. Therefore, complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however countered the aforesaid allegations on the ground that the complainant had purchased Life Long Policy of the opposite parties after fully understanding its terms and conditions. She failed to review the policy and cancel the same within the stipulated period of 15 days. Therefore, she is not entitled to the sum assured. Of course, she is only eligible to surrender value as calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Since she never approached the opposite parties for the said purpose, therefore, the question of payment of surrender value even also does not arise.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is not disputed that after purchase of the policy in question complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the month of January, 2008 and the next installment to the tune of similar amount was deposited by her in January, 2009. In this way, complainant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the company of the opposite parties. From the stand taken by the complainant it is clear beyond doubt that she is not interested in continuing with the policy. Therefore, in our considered opinion she deserves to be allowed surrender value to be calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy as complainant has not been able to prove that she was entitled to full amount of sum assured nor such conclusion is possible from the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 relied upon by her. Complainant is educated lady. She sign the documents as such, so she cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy on the alleged ground of misrepresentation. Absence or request in this behalf by the complainant in the circumstances of the case is no impediment to the grant of aforesaid relief.

11. In view of our above observations and findings complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to release her the amount of surrender value as calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay the amount of surrender value as mentioned above alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint till realization of the amount. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 10.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)