^{STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,}

                            ^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

^{Asees Mohan Singh Gill, r/o # 5991, M.H.C. Mani Majra, Chandigarh.}

^{…..Appellant/Complainant}

^{V E R S U S}

^{Aviva Life Insurance Co. India, SCO No.180-181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.}

^{.…..Respondent/Opposite Party} 

^BEFORE:

^{Argued by:Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.}

^{PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER}

^{2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased an Insurance Policy dated 7.2.2008, Annexure C-1, from the Opposite Party, after filling up a proposal form on 9.1.2008, and on paying Rs.50,000/- as premium. The representative of the Opposite Party explained the policy plans and assured the complainant that three regular premiums paid by him shall fetch him an amount with handsome interest after three years plus a Life Insurance Policy. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.50,000/- for next two years, and waited patiently for his amount after that. It was further stated that the complainant received a letter dated 18.1.2013 from the Opposite Party alongwith a cheque of Rs.63,167/- (Annexure C-2 and C-3), wherein, it was mentioned that the Policy had been terminated and the surrender value was Rs.63,167/-. It was further stated that the fund value on the date of termination was Rs.1,44,152/- but the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.63,167/- to him. The complainant then again sent a letter on 11.4.2013 to the Opposite Party, seeking clarification. The Opposite Party sent a reply dated 17.4.2013 without any plausible explanation. It was further stated that the complainant never received any demand, after the completion of three years, regarding the deposit of premiums and he received the letter and cheque only in the year 2013. It was further stated that the calculations and deductions by the Opposite Party, were not in consonance with the IRDA Notification dated 1.7.2010, Annexure C-6. It was further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.5.2013, Annexure C-7, but the Opposite Party failed to explain the deductions. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.} 

^{3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party stated that the complainant filled up a proposal form, after duly deliberating and understanding all the terms and conditions of Easy Life Plus plan. Under the said Policy, a premium of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid annually with total premium payment term of 10 years. It was further stated that based on the details mentioned in the proposal form, Policy bearing No.ELP1827373 dated 14.1.2008 was issued to the complainant with the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said Policy contained a notice of free look, whereby, the Policy holder had a right to reconsider his decision to purchase the Policy within 15 days of receipt of the Policy document. The complainant paid three premiums and stopped making payment thereafter. It was further stated that the Opposite Party sent various reminders to the complainant to pay the premium amount and due to non receipt of premium, the Policy was auto foreclosed and Rs.63167/- were refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 17.1.2013. It was further stated that the Policy, in question, was issued before 2010 and the Notification dated 1.7.2010 was not applicable to the present matter. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.}

^{4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.}

^{5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.} 

^{6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.}

^{7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.} 

^{8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the complainant purchased the Insurance Policy, in question, from the Opposite Party, after filling up the proposal form on 9.1.2008 and paying Rs.50,000/- as premium. He further submitted that the complainant paid the premium of Rs.50,000/- for next two years, and waited patiently for his amount after that. He further submitted that the complainant received a letter dated 18.1.2013 from the Opposite Party alongwith a cheque of Rs.63,167/- (Annexure C-2 and C-3), wherein, it was mentioned that the Policy had been terminated and the surrender value was Rs.63,167/-. He further submitted that the fund value on the date of termination was Rs.1,44,152/- but the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.63,167/- to him. He further submitted that the Opposite Party never sent any information regarding the fund value, in all three years, and only while terminating the Policy, the fund value statement as on the date of termination was sent to the complainant.}  

^{9.                    After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, made by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. So far as, the IRDA Regulations dated 1.7.2010 Annexure C-6 are concerned the same could not be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because, in the instant case, the complainant, admittedly, purchased the Policy with commencement date of 14.1.2008 while the Notification of the IRDA is dated 1.7.2010. The said Notification could not be given retrospective effect. Had the complainant purchased the Insurance Policy after 1.7.2010, the position would have been different.} 

^{10.                  The next submission of the Counsel for the appellant was that the fund value on the date of termination was Rs.1,44,152/- but the Opposite Party, paid an amount of Rs.63,167/- to complainant is without, any merit because it is the complainant himself who failed to pay the due premiums as per the terms and conditions of the Policy.} 

^{(1)         Reinstate the policy subject to Article 2(d). The Policy may be reinstated within 2 consecutive years from the due date of the first unpaid installment of regular premium.}

^{(2)         Surrender the policy in accordance with Article 5), upon which the policy shall automatically terminate and OP will pay the Policyholder a Surrender Value;}

^{(3)         Continue the Policy beyond the reinstatement period without paying further Regular Premium, provided OP receives a written notice from the Policyholder within sixty days of the due date of the first unpaid installment of Regular Premium, requesting it to continue the Policy. If OP accepts the Policyholder’s request, it will continue the Policy with the benefits per Article 3) being in force and will continue to levy charges as specified in the Schedule.}

^{Even in reply to the letter, Annexure C-4, sent by the complainant, the Opposite Party vide its reply dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure C-5) clarified that as the Policy was not reinstated during the reinstatement period, it got auto fore closed and the refund cheque of Rs.63,167/- was sent to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy. It was also clarified that if a Policy was not revived within the revival period and attained surrender value at the time of completion of reinstatement period then Policy would get automatically surrendered on the system. The surrender value (if any) would get calculated post deduction of penalty (if any).} 

^{11.                   In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint. Thus, the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be held.} 

^{12.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.}

^{13.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.}

^{14.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.}

Pronounced.

26.03.2014            [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                                           [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg