Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V., Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
30th day of November 2016
C.C. 561/12 filed on 30/11/2012
Complainant : Mr.Useph Ammukunji, S/o.Ammukunji,
Mathilakatahuveettil House, Kaipamangalam
Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur.
(By Adv.C.S.A.Illah, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,
Ashirwad Towers, Plot No.11, Old No.182,
Kodambakkam, High Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai, rep. by Managing Director.
2. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., IInd
floor, Centre Point, MG Road, Thrissur, rep.
by Branch Head.
3. T.R.Ramachandran, M.D. Chief. Aviva Life
Insurance Co. India Ltd., Ashirwad Towers,
Plot No.11, Old No.182, Kodambakkam,
High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
4. Vijayalakshmi Natarajan, Senior Consultant,
Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,
Ashirwad Towers, Plot No.11, Old No.182,
Kodambakkam, High Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
5. Jyothi V Arwani, Chief Invert Officer, Aviva
Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Ashirwad
Towers, Plot No.11, Old No.182,
Kodambakkam, High Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
6. Jackson.P., Advisor, Global Plaza,
Poothole.P.O., Thrissur.
(By Adv.A.Y.Khalid, Thrissur for R1 to R5)
O R D E R
By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that he has induced by the opposite parties to invest in a policy of opposite parties. He was told that if he paid three yearly instalments of Rs.60,000/-, after three years, he will get back the actual amount paid with interest. Believing the words, the complainant happened to invest in the fund plan of the opposite parties. Accordingly on 27/1/07 complainant paid R.60,000/- and the 2nd opposite party sent the insurance certificate with terms and conditions. When the complainant gone through the terms and conditions received, it was found that, what is stated in the terms and conditions are entirely different from what was told by the opposite parties directly to the complainant at the time of incepting the policy. Then the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and enquired regarding the terms and conditions. Then he was told by the 2nd opposite party that the conditions are only applicable to the customers who are continuing the policy by paying yearly premium even after three years. He has also assured and asked him to remit the 2nd and 3rd yearly premiums. Accordingly the complainant has paid Rs.60,000/- each on 20/2/08 and 20/2/09 respectively.
2. After three years, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for the refund of the premium paid with interest, whereas after calculating, the concerned officer of 2nd opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. The cheque was not accompanied with any calculation statement. Again the complainant enquired regarding the non payment of assured amount, he was informed that his account plan was closed as he failed to pay the 4th year’s premium. They were not ready to give an explanatory statement to that effect. Then the complainant came to understand that the opposite parties misappropriated the amount paid by the complainant and cheated him. On 16/4/12 the complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party demanding the actual amount. Whereas, the opposite party sent a rely stating that they are not liable to pay any further amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief.
3. On being noticed on the complaint, the 1st to 5th opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed detailed version. The 6th opposite party even after accepting the notice, neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version. Hence set exparte. In the version filed by the contesting opposite parties, they challenged the maintainability of the complaint contending that the complaint is barred by limitation, since it is filed after two years from the date of issuance of the policy. The opposite parties however admitted the policy, they denied all other allegations stated in the complaint. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is only entitled to get the surrender value of the policy as per the terms and conditions. They further submitted that the complainant has invested in the life long unit linked policy, only after duly understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy. In the detailed version, the opposite parties described various features of the life long unit linked policy. The contesting opposite parties further submitted that since a fraud is alleged in the complaint, it has to be adjudicated by a Civil Court concerned. They further submitted that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards he complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2) Whether any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite parties ?
3) If so what costs and reliefs ?
5. From the side of complainant, he has appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit and an additional proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and explained all the contentions stated in his complaint in detail. He has also produced seven documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is intimation regarding change in policy status, Ext.P2 is copy of lawyer notice dated 16/4/12, Ext.P3 is copy of reply notice, Ext.P4 is policy document, Ext.P5 is first premium receipt, Ext.P6 is renewal premium receipt and Ext.P7 is another renewal premium receipt.
6. From the side of opposite parties, counter proof affidavit filed by senior legal executive, in which he has affirmed and explained all the contentions raised in their version in detail. They have produced three documents, which are marked as Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R1 is copy of key features of the policy, Ext.R2 is copy of proposal form and Ext.R3 is copy of standard terms and conditions. Both sides filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.
7. We have gone through the contents of the affidavits filed as well as the contents of the documents produced from both sides. Admittedly, the dispute is with regard to a life long unit linked policy. The policy documents produced from the side of complainant which is marked as Ext.P4. As far as the case of unit linked policies are concerned, the law is well settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwala case that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and the dispute relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. In the light of above mentioned ruling, we are of the opinion that being a dispute related to the unit linked policy, this complaint cannot be considered as a consumer dispute. The other two points are decided accordingly. However the fact being so, during the trial stage, the opposite parties submitted an application for settlement and they have expressed their willingness to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant as a full and final settlement. Unfortunately, we are helpless to pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay the agreed amount to the complainant, since the complaint is not maintainable. However the parties can settle the matter according to their wish and will.
In the result, we dismiss this complaint without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Intimation regarding change in policy status
Ext.P2 Copy of lawyer notice dated 16/4/12
Ext.P3 Copy of reply notice
Ext.P4 Policy document
Ext.P5 is first premium receipt
Ext.P6 Renewal premium receipt
Ext.P7 Another renewal premium receipt.
Opposite Parties Exhibits
Ext.R1 Copy of key features of the policy
Ext.R2 Copy of proposal form
Ext.R3 Copy of standard terms and conditions
Id/-
President
