Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/153/2014

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurace - Opp.Party(s)

SH H.S Tiwana

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.153 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  17.12.2014

                                                                Date of decision   :  23.11.2015

Mohan Singh son of Puran Singh R/o village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, P.O. Amrala, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. having its branch office at SCO No.101,102 & 103, 2^nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017, through its Branch Manager.
2. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. having its Head Office: Aviva Tower Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003(Haryana) through its Chairman/M.D.

…..Opposite parties    

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. H.S.Tiwana, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                 Sh. Vinay Sood, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.                               

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Mohan Singh son of Puran Singh R/o village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, P.O. Amrala, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased a policy No.10044174 in his name from OP No.1 through its official/agent, which was commenced on 07.08.2013. At the time of purchase of the policy it was told to the complainant that he has to pay one installment of Rs.1,03,090/- only and thereafter the company will return the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within five years to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.1,03,090/- on 29.08.2013. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the said policy was for the period of 12 years and he will have to pay Rs.1,03,090/- per annum as installment premium, which was not as per the terms and conditions of the policy as assured by the agent of the OPs. The complainant approached the branch office at Chandigarh and made a complaint about the said matter but he was told by the officials of the OPs that as per the policy the complainant will have to pay Rs.1,03,090/- per annum for the period of 12 years. Thereafter, on 03.09.2014 the complainant sent registered/A.D. notice through his counsel to the OPs to refund the amount paid but the OPs sent reply to the said notice by mentioning false facts. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.1,03,090/- along with F.D.R. interest and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

3.                The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this Forum; that the present complaint is barred as this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against the OPs to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that the complainant himself was willing to purchase a Life Insurance Plan and after understanding all the terms and conditions and benefits of all plans, he opted to purchase Aviva Family Income Builder Plan of the OPs and for this purpose he filed a proposal form bearing No.NNU17376138 on 05.08.2013 and opted to pay Rs.1,03,090/- as annual premium. On receipt of the application and required documents, policy bearing No.10044174 was issued to the complainant on 07.08.2013 and the same was sent along with its terms and conditions to the complainant through speed post on the given address and the same was duly received by the complainant. It is further stated that as per the provisions of the Insurance Act and as per the policy documents, there is specifically mentioned that the policyholder has an option to reconsider the policy i.e. Free Look Period option and 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. If the policyholder cancel his policy, the premium will be refunded after adjusting for adverse movement in units prices less charges incurred on account of stamp duty and medical expenses but in the present case, the complainant did not do so, from which it is clearly established that he agreed for the same. The complainant has paid only one premium towards the subject policy and for reasons best known to him had abstained from paying any further premiums. As a result the subject policy is in lapsed state. It is further stated that the OPs registered under the provision of Insurance Act,1938, IRDA Act,1999 and rules and regulations made thereunder and moreover followed the entire guidelines issued by IRDA from time to time strictly, so the complainant is not entitled to any relief as alleged. A proper service has been provided by the OPs to the complainant so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copy of welcome letter along with schedule and proposal form Ex. C-2, true copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-3, true copy of legal notice Ex. C-4 true copy of postal receipt Ex. C-5, true copy of letter dated 08.07.2014 Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Bhuwan Bhashker Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e application form Ex. OP-2, sale information report Ex. OP-3, statement of account Ex.OP-4, declaration Ex. OP-5, letter dated 05.08.2013 Ex. OP-6, premium quotation along with terms and conditions Ex. OP-7, letter dated 23.08.2013 Ex. OP-8, letter dated 16.08.2013 Ex. OP-9, request of clarification Ex. OP-10, electronic clearing services Ex. OP-11, PAN declaration Ex. OP-12, form No.61 Ex. OP-13, declaration of sources of income Ex. OP-14, zamabandi Ex. OP-15, J form Ex. OP-16, translation of revenue record Ex.OP-17, self employed/ unearned income declaration Ex. OP-18, Legal notice Ex. OP-19, reply to legal notice Ex. OP-20, terms and conditions Ex. OP-21 and closed the evidence.

5.                The ld. counsel for the OPs has at the very outset made a submission that his preliminary objection be decided before adjudicating the present complaint on merits. The ld. counsel stated that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer. The ld. counsel further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Revision Petition No.658 of 2013 decided on 23/04/2013 and the same has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Paramjit Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, in C.C No.96 of 2011 decided on 04.07.2014. Wherein the Hon’ble Commissions have held “that policies having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the preview of the Consumer Protection Act.”

6.               On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the case law relied upon by the OPs are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. He stated that the present case deserves to be adjudicated upon on merits only.

7.               After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the ld. counsel for the OPs. It is well established from copy of welcome letter alongwith schedule and proposal form i.e Ex. C-2, copy of first premium receipt i.e Ex.C-3, application form i.e Ex. OP-2, sale information report i.e Ex. OP-3, statement of account i.e Ex.OP-4, declaration i.e Ex. OP-5, premium quotation along with terms and conditions i.e Ex. OP-7 that the said policy was a unit linked policy. Thus in the light of the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs and the case law relied upon by him in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Revision Petition No.658 of 2013 decided on 23/04/2013 by Hon’ble National Commission and Paramjit Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, in C.C No.96 of 2011 decided on 04.07.2014 by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab,it is established that the policy taken was for investment purpose. The Hon’ble Commission has observed in para No.6;

“In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that Policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the following observations:-

“The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer under the     opposite parties. The State Commission Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party.”

8.                Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid case law relied by the OPs, we are of the considerate view that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievances against the OPs. All the original and requisite documents placed on record be returned to the complainant. A copy of the said documents be retained in record.

9.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on ­­­­­­­­­­06.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:23.11.2015                                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                           President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal) Member