Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/404/2016

Meena Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/404/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	08/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Meena Aggarwal W/o Sh.S.K.Aggarwal, resident of Flat No. 1234, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

1)   Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 45-46, 2^nd Floor, near Jagat Theatre, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2)   Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Gold Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122003, through its Managing Director.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Smt. Meena Aggarwal (hereinafter called the Complainant) has filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that enticed by the various representations made by the Agent of the Opposite Parties about rich dividends, one-time payment plan with lock-in-period of three years, the Complainant took one Aviva Dhan Vridhi Plan after paying a premium of Rs.75,000/- and as a sequel thereto she was issued Policy No. TDW3083611 of March 2011. Later on, on receiving the premium demand, the Complainant realized that the Opposite Parties had sold the said policy to her by misrepresenting the facts, therefore, she approached the Opposite Parties after waiting for three years, but did not get anything. Eventually, she approached the Permanent Lok Adalat in December, 2014, but the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 24.02.2016 showed its inability to decide the matter on merit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.          Opposite Parties in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that there was no misrepresentation as the Complainant applied for and obtained the policy of insurance after duly understanding the same. It has been asserted that the Complainant continued to receive messages for the purposes of depositing of the next premium, which was as per the terms & conditions of the policy which she failed to deposit. Since the present Complaint has only been filed to overreach the terms & conditions of the policy, therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any refund. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the authorized representative of the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.          As per the Complainant, Opposite Parties have issued a wrong policy to her and despite her request the Opposite Parties have not refunded her amount. Opposite Parties have denied the same and urged that the policy is governed by the terms & conditions contained therein. It is noticed that against the inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had firstly, preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T. Chandigarh on 01.12.2014 and after the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 24.02.2016 showed its inability to decide the matter on merit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, she knocked the doors of this Forum by filing the present Consumer Complaint on 02.06.2016. It has come on record that the Complainant had not paid the 2nd premium, which was due in the month of March, 2012. Hence, when the present complaint was preferred against the Opposite Parties, the said policy was already lying in a discontinued mode and in a situation, the Opposite Parties were bound to refund the premium as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010, as notified vide notification dated 1.7.2010,  Regulation 7 of which reads as under:-

“ Obligation of an insurer upon discontinuation of a policy

7.   The obligation of an insurer in this regard shall be as follows:-

i.    To impose discontinuance charges only to recoup expenses incurred towards procurement,     administration of the policy and  incidental thereto.

 

ii.   To design the discontinuance charges to encourage the policyholder to continue with the       contract for the full term;

 

iii.  To ensure that the discontinuance charges reflect the actual expenses incurred.

 

iv.   To structure the discontinuance charges within the statutory ceiling on commissions and        expenses and

 

v.    To ensure that the charges levied on the date of discontinuance (as a percentage of one         annualized premium) do not exceed the limits specified below:-

 

Where the policy is discontinued during the policy year	Maximum Discontinuance charges for policies having annualized premium up to and including Rs.25000/-	Maximum discontinuance charges for policies having annualized premium above Rs.25000/-
1	Lower of 20% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.3000/-	Lower of 6% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.6000/-
2	Lower of 15% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.2000/-	Lower of 4% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.5000/-
3	“Lower of 10% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.1500/-	Lower of 3% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.4000/-
4	Lower of 5% (AP or FV subject to a maximum of Rs.1000/-	Lower of 2% of (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.2000/-
5 and onwards	NIL	NIL

 

 Ap- Annualised premium

Fv- fund value on the date of discontinuance

Provided that where a policy is discontinued, only discontinuance charge may be levied by the insurer and no other charges by whatsoever name called shall be levied.

Provided that no discontinuance charges shall be imposed on single premium policies and on top ups.”

          Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties in not treating the case of the Complainant as per the Regulation 7 ibid, amounts to deficiency in service.

 

8.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed to:-

[a]  To pay the claim amount of Rs.69,000/- (Rs.75,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-) to the Complainant, as per above mentioned Regulation 7;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

9.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

 

10.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th Nov., 2017                                                                                                                           Sd/-   

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

                                  Sd/-                  

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”