BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.92 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.03.2014

Date of Decision :30.03.2015

Kanwaljit Singh aged about 50 years son of Niranjan Singh R/o 6037, Zenith Avenue South Edina, Minnesota, USA through Special Attorney Ravinder Singh son of Charan Singh R/o 617, Urban Estate Phase-I, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Regd.Office 2nd Floor, Parkashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

2. Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Danik Bhaskar Office, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is Non-resident Indian and unable to file the present complaint before this Forum. The complainant appointed special attorney Ravinder Singh to do all acts on his behalf and filing the complaint and he is well conversant with the facts. In the month of January 2008, the advisor of the opposite parties approached the complainant for investing the money in the life insurance policies having single premium and assured that it would give handsome returns. The complainant opted three policies from the advisor of the opposite parties having total amount of Rs.30 Lacs. The policy documents had never been received by the complainant. After two years the complainant was shocked, when he received notices for the payments of the policies. In the month of March 2010, the complainant approached the opposite parties and lodged his complaint in the office of opposite parties. The opposite parties asked to the complainant to submit certain documents to them, that they would inquire the same but after sometime the complainant did not get any fruitful results. In the month of April 2011, the complainant again approached the opposite parties and enquired the policy documents and found that the certain pages of the proposal form had been changed and also change regarding the premium of single term to multiple term payments. In July 2012, the complainant again approached to the opposite parties for cancelling the policies and return the amount with interest. Accordingly, the opposite parties returned the amount of Rs.30 Lacs to the complainant without any interest. The amount of Rs.30 Lacs of the complainant remained lying with the opposite parties for almost 4-1/2 years. The above said act of the opposite parties not only tantamount to unfair trade practice but also amounts to rendering of deficient, defective and negligent services towards the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to give him interest @ 9% p.a. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and an attempt to make unlawful gains. There is no negligence, deficiency of services or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainant required time consuming investigation and after investigation the policies disputed by him were cancelled and he was refunded the premiums with interest @ 6% p.a for the delayed period of 18 days. The complainant has duly received said payment and almost after more than one year as an afterthought and to make unlawful gains to extract and make wrongful gains against the cooperative attitude of the opposite parties has filed the present complaint which does not come within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed. There is no agreement for payment of interest between the complainant and the opposite parties and the Consumer Forums are not the courts of plenary jurisdiction to award interest etc for settlement of dues. The policy opted by the complainant is investment oriented for 100% investments of the premium money in units and as such is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant has alleged fraud and which requires detailed investigation which can not be completed under the summary procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Opposite parties after receipt of proposals of the complainant with required premium and documents issued for separate insurance policies i.e policy No.WLG1567033, RPG 1815065, RPG 1808923 and APG 1833010 in December 2007 and January 2008. All policies issued by the opposite parties were Unit Linked Plans in which the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the complainant. The policy No.WLG1567033 Lifelong Unit Linked was dispatched on 16.6.2007 vide Overnite Courier #539449320 and it was delivered at his address on 19.6.2007. The policy No.RPG 1808923, Pension Plus Unit Linked was sent to the complainant on 5.1.2008 by Overnite Courier receipt No.552402419 and was delivered at the address of the complainant on 7.1.2008 and policy No.APG 1833010 sent to the complainant by Overnite Courier receipt No.#5556750920 dated 8.2.2008 and it was delivered at the address of the complainant o n 11.2.2008. A free look period of 15 days was granted to the complainant but complainant never opt out of the policy nor reported for any mis-selling due to which the opposite parties provided necessary insurance cover to the complainant under the said policies. Since the complainant failed to pay the remaining premium amount so the policies lapsed. It is subsequently when complainant disputed about three policies being policy No.RPG 1815065, RPG 1808923 and APG 1833010 necessary action was taken and on the request investigation was made by the opposite parties and inspite of the fact that the policies were in lapse mode and there is delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the matter to it still taking the customer centric approach it refunded the premium amount of the said three policies No.WLG1567033, RPG 1815065, RPG 1808623 and APG 1833010 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum for 18 days period of delay on the part of the company to the complainant. There has been no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties rather it had adopted fair and absolute transparent proceedings for which the complainant can not hold it liable. The complainant is liable for his own acts and omission and commission and as such the opposite parties are not liable in any manner whatsoever. The complainant has also filed a complaint with the Ombudsman and the same has already been dismissed. The reply filed with the Ombudsman may be read as part and parial with this reply. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP25 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. Now the only dispute involved in the present case is regarding interest amount on the amount refunded by the opposite parties which was received by it as premium under the three policies. Counsel for the opposite contended that the policies in question are Unit Linked Policies and as such the complainant invested the amount for profit and can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. The policies in question are not purely unit linked policies. Under the policy life risk was also covered. In preliminary objection No.6, the opposite parties have pleaded that policy No.RPG 1808923 pension plus unit linked was sent to the complainant. So it was composite policy. In the proposal form Ex.OP1 sum assured is mentioned as Rs.50 Lacs meaning thereby that life risk was also covered. In another proposal form Ex.OP2, name of plain is mentioned as pension plus. Moreover, at present, the opposite parties have already refunded the premium amount of the three policies. The opposite party insurance company has already refunded the premiums amount i.e Rs.30 Lacs to the complainant vide cheques, copies of which are Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 on record due to complaint filed by him with the insurance company alleging non receipt of the polices and mis-selling and further changing the some papers of the proposal form. While refunding the amount, the opposite party insurance company only granted interest for delay of 18 days although, the amount of the premiums remained with it for about 4-1/2 years. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the policies were duly dispatched to the complainant and after he applied for cancellation of the three policies, same were cancelled notwithstanding the facts that request was made beyond free look period and premiums amount of Rs.30 Lacs alongwith 18 days interest @ 6% per annum was refunded to him. So the main point for adjudication involved in the present case is, whether opposite parties are liable to pay interest amount of the period prior to cancelling of the policies? Accordingly to the opposite parties, the policies were dispatched to the complainant at his address in the year 2008. In case policies were dispatched to the complainant in the year 2008, then complainant was not entitled to cancellation of the policies in the year 2012 as the free look period has already expired. In fact, policies were not cancelled due to applying for cancellation of the policies by the complainant within free look period but due to his complaint regarding mis-selling etc as already stated above. In para 2 of the preliminary objection, the opposite parties have pleaded that grievance of the complainant required time consuming investigation and after investigation the policies disputed by him were cancelled and he was refunded the premiums with interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed period of 18 days. The very fact that the opposite parties have pleaded that grievance of the complainant required time consuming investigation and after investigation the policies disputed by him were cancelled clearly prove that policies were cancelled due to the complaint of the complainant regarding mis-selling etc. Further the opposite parties must have cancelled the policies after investigation finding substance in the complaint of the complainant. The Ombudsman had not decided the complaint about the non payment of interest on the refund of amount of Rs.30 Lacs under three policies in question on the ground that it does not fall within its purview. This fact is evident from the copy of order of Ombudsman Ex.OP25 on record. Reply filed by insurance company before Ombudsman is on record and in the reply before Ombudsman, the opposite party insurance company has taken stand as under:-

"However, the entire fact-sheet would reveal that there has been delay in investigation by the company only due to the complainant who failed to provide the relevant documents for investigation as also the facts were brought to the knowledge to the company at a later stage. It is also evident that as soon as the company received the documents, it investigated the matter and refunded the amount at the earliest".

7. So the above stand of the insurance company before Ombudsman also clearly tends to prove that policies were cancelled by the company after making thorough investigation by it on the complaint of the complainant. So it is not case of cancellation of policies within free look period but cancellation of the policies by the insurance company finding substance in the complaint and grievance of the complainant. By cancelling the policies after investigation and refunding the entire premium amount to the complainant, the opposite party insurance company has in a way admitted its fault. So in these circumstances, opposite party insurance company is liable to pay interest on the premiums amounts of Rs.30 Lacs paid by the complainant to it. The opposite party insurance company can not be refused to pay interest amount due to its own fault or fault of its agent or advisor.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party insurance company is directed to pay 9% interest on the amount of premiums of Rs.30 Lacs from the date it was received by insurance company from complainant till the date it was refunded to him. Interest amount already paid by opposite party insurance company beyond 18 days shall be adjusted. It is clarified that interest amount is being granted to the complainant by way of compensation. The above said amount be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

30.03.2015 Member Member President