Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1502/2015

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Rahul Sharma

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.  1502

                                                Instituted on:    19.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       22.07.2016

 

Naresh Kumar aged 54 years son of Om Parkash, resident of House No.150, New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122003 (HRY) through its Managing Director.

2.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Registered Office 2^nd Floor, Parkaashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg New Delhi 110 001 through its authorised signatory.

3.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Ground and First Floor, SCF 8, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala 147 001 through its authorized Manager.

4.     Sohan Singh agent of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Agent Code No.40660572 through Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Ground and First Floor, SCF 8, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala 147 001 through its authorised manager.

5.     HDFC Bank, Kaula Park, Branch Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.1 to 3      :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Adv.

For OP No.5             :       Shri SS Punia, Adv.

For OP No.4             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Shri Naresh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant hired the services of the Ops by getting a policy bearing number WLG1381890 commencing from 16.11.2006 and the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- each for five years and by this way the complainant deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and the last premium was deposited with the Ops on 16.12.2011.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops have illegally paid only an amount of Rs.86,430/- vide cheque number 155216 dated 21.11.2013 and as such an amount of Rs.63,570/- has been paid less and even no interest was paid. It is further averred that the complainant was not in possession of the policy and even the Ops did not supply the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further averred in the complaint that the agent of the OPs  i.e. OP number 4 had assured the complainant that on maturity the company will pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and as such, by this way, the OP has paid an amount of Rs.1,13,570/- in less to the complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,13,570/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 to 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the policy Life Long Unit Linked Plan in question, of which the premium was Rs.30,000/- per year and assured sum was Rs.3,75,000/-. It is further stated that there is specific note i.e. in Unit Linked Plans, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder and as such, the proposal form was duly signed by the complainant. It is stated further that the complainant paid only five premiums against the policy and as per the policy terms and conditions, the complainant having 30 days grace period to pay the premium, but the complainant failed to do so, as such the policy of the complainant lapsed due to non payment of the premium and thereafter he had two years period to revive the policy from the date of lapsation, but he failed to opt the same. As such, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy terminated after the expiry of the revival period and the Ops paid the entire value of the policy and the same had been received by the complainant.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 5,  legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, the allegations of the complainant have been denied.

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 4 was proceeded exparte on 11.01.2016.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 postal receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of first premium receipt, Ex.C-7 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 to 3 has produced documents and affidavits Ex.OP1to3/1 to ExOP1to3/15 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 5 has produced Ex.OP5/1 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

7.             In the present complaint, the version of the complainant is that he purchased the policy in question from the OPs number 1 to 3 through OP number 4 and had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the amount of premium on 16.11.2006. The premium had regularly been paid from 16.11.2006 to 16.12.2011 every year on due date. At the time of obtaining the policy, OP number 4 had promised that after payment of five premium instalments of Rs.30,000/- each the complainant will get Rs.2,00,000/- plus bonus, but the OPs had sent a cheque for Rs.86,430/- after five years and as such the Ops are deficient in service.

 

8.             In written reply, the Ops number 1 to 3 had submitted that after obtaining the policy the complainant did not raise any objection regarding the policy either within 15 days free look period or within reasonable time, therefore, the policy was under unit linked plan and the actual payment of benefits in this policy vary, based on the actual performance of investment funds chosen by the policy holder.  In such plans, unit price of investment fund may increase or decrease as per the performance of the financial markets.  In the present complaint, unit price has been paid as per the market rate.  The OP number 4 has remained exparte and the OP number 5 has denied this allegation.

 

9.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant had been regularly depositing the amount of premium for five years.  During this period, he had never objected to any terms and conditions of the policy as no such document has been placed on record by him.  On the perusal of the document Ex.C-6, which is the first premium receipt of the policy, we find that the date of last premium has been mentioned as 16.11.2045 and on this, it has not been mentioned that after five annual premium payments of Rs.30,000/- each, the complainant will received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant.  This document reveals that during the currency of the policy, the insured/complainant was also assured for Rs.3,75,000/-.  In this policy, the insured would have received a claim of Rs.3,75,000/- in case of death.  So, the policy in question was not only an investment plan, but was also an insurance plan in which the life risk of the assured was also covered.

 

10.           We have also gone through the document Ex.OP1to3/1 which is a proposal form and we find that it was a life long plan and it was not for five years as per the version of the complainant.  The proposal form has been signed by the complainant in English and this shows that the policy was purchased after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant had deposited instalments for five years regularly.

 

11.           In the present complaint, the only ground of the complainant is that at the time of obtaining the policy, the agent who is the OP number 4 in the complaint had assured him that after payment of five annual premiums of Rs.30,000/-, he will get Rs.2,00,000/- plus bonus, but the complainant has failed to place on record any reliable and cogent evidence in support of his version.  The onus to prove the complainant lies with the complainant and from the facts mentioned above, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his version. 

 

12.           In the light of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 22, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member