Haryana

Ambala

CC/138/2012

JASBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA LIFE INSS. - Opp.Party(s)

D.S PUNIA

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

            Complaint Case No.    : 138 of 2012

Date of Institution       : 01.05.2012

            Date of Decision         : 25.01.2017

Jasbir Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh Caste Saini, R/o Mullana Tehsil Barara District Ambala.                                                                                               

                                   ……Complainant.

                                          Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its:-

            1.         Manager, Branch Office, Opp. Quality Sweets, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

2.         Office-in-charge, Head Office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector-43, Guragon-122003.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. D.S. Punia, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Vivek Vaid, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant took a policy from Op vide no.WTG1375711 under Plan Name: Life Long-Unit linked Tempalated, commencing from 10.11.2006 with premium amount of Rs.24,000/- annually.  It has been submitted that at the time of taking the policy it was apprised  him that after paying three regular installments, he can withdraw the accumulated principal amount with interest thereon at any time and locking period for this period is only three years and he need not to  deposit further premium and he can surrender the policy at any time after three years locking period. It has been submitted that  complainant deposited three consecutive instalments  viz. 10.11.2006, 11.12.2007 and on 10.12.2008.  Further it has been submitted that in November 2011, the complainant was in dire need of money so, he applied for refund of the deposited amount but he was surprised to receive a cheque of Rs.30,700/- only whereas  he was entitled to Rs.72,000/- plus interest thereon at that time.  Thus, the Ops have played mischievous with him by not making him the payment of the actual due amount lying deposited with them under the policy, so he approached OPs but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops  appeared through counsel and tendered reply  raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that the said policy was issued based on the declaration made and information provided in the Proposal Forum. Policy features alongwith terms and conditions were properly explained to the complainant before signing the proposal form and after  the expiry of free look period, the policy terms and conditions permits surrender of the policy only after completion of 3 years where surrender value as payable in accordance with the policy terms and conditions shall be payable on surrender of the policy.  It has been submitted that   the said policy  was due for  premium in November 2009, however, the complainants failed to deposit the premium because of which the status of the said policy was changed to in force notice period on 16.12.2009 when the complainant failed to reinstated the said policy within a prescribed time frame, the status of the policy was changed to “Auto Fore Closure” on 10.11.2011. Further it has been submitted that the policy in force notice period gets converted into Auto Fore Closure when the in force premium gets discontinued or the in force revival period gets over under the conditions that the surrender value falls below first year premium (base plan). During the Auto Foreclosure mode, the policy holder can surrender the said policy and shall be entitled to the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the said policy.  Since, the complainant failed to reinstated the said policy and to choose any of the options specified in Article 15.3 of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, as per the Article 15.4 of the terms and conditions of the said policy and all available benefits as per Article 9 automatically terminated at the expiry of the reinstatement period and opposite party paid surrender value of amount of Rs.30,700/- to the  complainant.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                     To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit Jasbir Singh as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavits Anenxures RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the case file very carefully. The case of the complainant is that  he took the policy Annexure C-1 from the Op commencing from 10.11.2006 with premium amount of Rs.24,000/- annually and he paid three installments  with the Ops  vide premium receipts Annexures C-2 to C-4.  In the month of November 2011, he applied for refund of the deposited amount  and in return, the Ops issued him a cheque of Rs.30,700/- vide payment advice Annexure C-5. Thus the counsel for complainant  has argued that complainant was surprised to know when despite depositing a sum of Rs.72,000/- he has  received only Rs.30,700/- which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

                        On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued that before  issuing the policy in question, the complainant was apprised about the terms & conditions of the policy and the complainant after understanding the same complainant choose the policy and paid in the policy.  Further it has been argued that  the said policy was due for premium in November 2009, but the complainants failed to deposit the premium because of which the status of the policy was changed to inforce notice period on 16.12.2009 and the inforce notice period takes place when the premium discontinues after 36 months from date of coverage.  During this period, the policy holder is provided with complete policy cover and has an option to provide advance notice whether  he wants  continue his policy without paying further premium.  The other options which a policy holder can avail during the inforce notice period are that he can either get the said policy reinstated or he can surrender the policy as per the terms & conditions of the said policy. Since, the complainant failed to reinstated the said policy and also failed to choose any of the options specified in Article 15.3, all benefits as per Article 9 automatically terminated at the expiry of the reinstatement period and opposite party paid surrender value of an amount of Rs.30,700/- paid to the complainant as  such, there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure R-2) Article 15 (3) Non-Payment of Regular Premium after three consecutive years from the commencement date and non-forfeiture provisions of which says as under:-

“The policy holder may reinstate the policy subject to Article 7.4 if within the reinstatement period, the surrender value of units attributable to Regular Premium fails below an amount equivalent to one year’s Regular Premium as Payable at the commencement  Date, then the policy shall automatically terminate and the policy holder will be paid the surrender value.”

6.                     In view of the above discussion, the commencement of the policy on 10.11.2006 is admitted between the parties and the complainant has paid three consecutive installments thereof and since November 2009, complainant failed to deposit installment of the policy and the policy thus came to Auto Fore-closure on 10.11.2011.  Under Article 15, the complainant had option to provide advance notice whether he wants continue his policy without paying further premium and the other option was that complainant can avail during the inforce notice period are that he can either get the said policy reinstated or he can surrender the policy. But the complainant has not placed on record any document which could show that complainant requested the OP in written to choose any of the abovesaid, as such, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the amount of Rs.30,700/- has rightly been released to the complainant by Ops. Accordingly, the compliant is devoid of merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:25.01.2017                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER