BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:152 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 04.04.2013.
Date of Decision:11.04.2017
Deepak Kumar son of Sitar, resident of House No. 529/2, Ward No. 2, Balmiki Basti, Jain Chowk, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector-13, Gurgaon.
- Punjab & Sind Bank, Hansi Road, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Amit Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Gagandeep Makkar, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Shri R.K. Punia, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is working with Municipal Council, Bhiwani as Safai Karamchari and his salary is paid through OP no. 1. It is alleged that one of the officials of the OP no. 2 allured the complainant and obtained his signatures on some printed papers alluring him that a little amount of Rs. 1500/- per quarter would be deducted from his salary with the OP no. 2 and shall be deposited with the OP no. 1 for which he would be issued a life insurance policy for an assured sum of Rs. 60,000/- by the OP no. 1. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 was deducted six quarterly installments of Rs. 1500/- totaling of Rs. 9,000/- from the salary account of the complainant and deposited the same with OP no. 1. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 had stopped deduction of quarterly installments from his salary account and the complainant has become defaulter of the OP no. 1 and he has become helpless at this stage to continue the policy by depositing the amount of quarterly installment. It is alleged that the complainant written a letter dated 03.04.2011 to OP no. 1 for refund of the deposited amount but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, humiliation and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that opposite party first premium and thereafter renewal premiums received through Demand draft and complainant never singed any ECS for auto payment of renewal premium with the bank. It is submitted that the complainant stops paying renewal premium reason best known by him and due to non-payment of renewal premium said policy was terminated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 regularly followed up for the renewal premium but complainant not paid the renewal premium. It is submitted that the answering company never had any branch in Bhiwani and the complainant has paid policy premium in Karnal and Hissar Branch of the answering company. It is further submitted that refund of the premium is not possible due to our of freelook period and premium can only be refunded if opposite party received said request with in freelook period of 15 days from the date of receiving the policy documents. It is submitted that said policy was due for regular premium for the term September 2009 and opposite party duly communicated to the complainant through a premium reminder notice 25.08.2009. It is submitted that the complainant failed to pay the regular premium for the term September 2009 even after the expiry of 30 days grace period therefore status of said policy was changed to Early Lapse on 05.11.2009. It is submitted that at the date of notification of the death of the insured only fund value is payable. It is submitted that complainant again failed to reinstate the said policy within a prescribe time frame of 2 years therefore said policy get terminated. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant did not give any consent to deduct installments from his account. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, complainant has placed on record supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavits.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that six installments of Rs. 1500/- each, totaling Rs. 9000/- was deducted from the salary account of the complainant by the OP no. 2 and paid to OP no. 1. Thereafter, the OP no. 2 stopped to deduct quarterly installments from the salary account of the complainant. The complainant was not in position to continue the policy. He submitted that the OP no. 1 is liable to refund the amount alongwith interest to the complainant.
8. Learned counsels for the OP no. 1 and 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The counsel for the OP no. 1 submitted that due to the non-payment of the installments regularly, the policy of the complainant has been lapsed. He submitted that the complainant is only entitled to the surrender value under the said policy.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the record. The material facts are not in dispute. Now the question arises whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of all premiums paid by him to the OP no. 1. Indisputably, during the period of the policy when it remained alive the risk was covered under the said policy. If during this period the complainant had died (an event which did not occur), the OP no. 1 would have had to pay the insured amount due under the policy). In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the surrender value of the policy. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no. 1 to refund Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. The OP no. 1 is directed to comply with this order within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP no. 1 shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the date of payment of the award amount to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 11.04.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
