Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/849/2019

Ms. Pritpal Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shiti Jain Dutt

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/849/2019
Date of Institution	:	20.8.2019
Date of Decision	:	30.1.2023

 

Ms. Pritpal Bhatia D/o late Sh. Jawand Singh Bhatia, House No.153, Sector 45/A, Chandigarh 160047.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd.  Branch office SCO 45, Sector 17-A, Opp. Park Plaza, Chandigarh-160017 through its authorized officer.

     Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. Head office at Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite DLF Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122003 through its authorized officer.

2. Indusind Bank Limited SCO 53-54, Sector 8, Chandigarh through its authorized officer.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY:		Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, counsel for complainant. Sh. Mayur Kanwar, counsel for OP no.1 alongwith Sh. Tej Ram Thakur, Assistant Manager Operation of OP No.1. Sh. Gaurav Kant Goel, Counsel for OP No.2.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated, the complainant purchased insurance policy No.NLS3066235 from OP No1 through OP No.2. The term of the policy was 20 years starting from 2.7.2012 to 2.7.2032 wherein the lock in period was 5 years. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.3.00 lakhs. The complainant invested her hard earned money in the said policy to secure her funds after retirement.  However, after retirement when the complainant wish to withdraw the amount invested by her after lock-in- period of 5 years and approached OP No.1 in July 2017 she was shocked to know that the value of her policy has left to Rs.13,80,000/- approximately.  The complainant strongly resisted the same and asked the OP No.1 to show as to how the premium of Rs.15 lakh invested in the bond funds has reduced to Rs.13.80 lakh in the last five years whereas the Indian economy is growing and value of bond funds are rising. But the OP NO.1 refused to show the same. Thereafter the complainant demanded policy account statement which was provided by the OP company which makes it clear that the bond funds purchased from the premium of Rs.15.00 lakh of the policy has value of Rs.19,33,930/- on 24.8.2017. But the OP insurance company with malafide intention reduced the maturity value and deducted the amount in the name of allocation charges, mortality charges and administrative charges on monthly basis whereas the premium is payable annually. The complainant also filed complaint with OP insurance company on 16.8.2017 and in response to that the OP insurance company stated that the policy was market based and they refused to refund the premium amount of Rs.15.00 lakh and certain charges were deducted at the time of withdrawal of the policy. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the complainant had signed and submitted the proposal form after going through the Key features documents and other related documents, which clearly explained the various features of the policy. The details of the policy were also explained to the complainant and the same was also mentioned in the benefit illustration signed by the complainant. The complainant who is an educated person filled up the proposal for taking Aviva Life Saver Advantage Policy after understanding the policy features and important terms and conditions. The policy opted by the complainant was a ULIP plan which is different from the traditional policy in the sense that it is subject to market risk and according to which the applicant is liable to pay mortality charges and other charges for the sum assured and the investment are always subject to market risks and hence the returns under a policy depend on the performance of the financial market on the date of reckoning. It is averred that in case the complainant was not satisfied with the policy terms and conditions for any reason he could cancel the same within 15 days of receiving the policy/document. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply stated that OP No.1 is a separate legal entity and whatever premium/amount has been paid by the complainant is paid to OP No.1. It is vehemently denied that the  answering OP offered the complainant to purchase the policy of OP No.1. The contract of insurance was entered between the complainant and OP No.1 and the answering OP has no privity of contract with it. Denying all other allegations in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. On perusal of the documents annexed as Annexure R-1, which is a proposal form it is observed that there is a clear mention as under:-

“In unit linked plans the investment risk in investment portfolio is born by the policy holder”

 

     The aforesaid proposal form is duly signed by the complainant meaning thereby the proposer had full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the policy and he was fully aware that the policy opted by him was a ULIP plan which is different from the traditional policy and are subject to market risk. Hence, the fund value of the policy as calculated on the basis of performance in the market of units is only payable to the complainant. We are also inclined to believe the version of the OPs that the complainant has opted for high sum assured of Rs.63.00 lakhs and the mortality charges were deducted by the company as per terms and conditions and have dented fund value appreciation significantly.  We are also of the view that if no mortality charges are deducted then no life cover can be granted by the insurance company.

8. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the insurance company has rightly paid the value of fund based on the net asset value of the units. Hence, we find no deficiency on the part of the OPs and no case is made out against it.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member