D.O.F  –  17-07-2012

                                                                                            D.O.O  –  09-03-2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

      Present:      Sri.Roy Paul                     :        President

                                                                                        Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K     :        Member

                                                                                        Sri. Babu  Sebastian          :        Member

                                                                                              Dated this, the 9^th day of  March , 2015.

CC.No.208/2012

Amsa.P,

Mattummal Puthiyapuriyil,

C/o. M.A.K.S.,

Kolacherry (PO),   Kambil,                               :       Complainant

Kannur – 670 601.

Aviva Life Insurance Company,

Grand Plaza,

2^nd Floor,                                                       :     Opposite Party

Fort Road,

Kannur – 670001.

(Rep. by Adv.Mirza Aslam Beg)

                                              ORDER

Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member

This is a complaint  filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the O.P.  alleging in service on the part of the opposite party and praying for directing the opposite party to re-pay  Rs.1,50,000 as a insurance premium paid to the opposite party and also award  Rs.2,00,000 as a compensation to complainant.

The case of the complainant in nutshell is as follows:

Complainant is the policy holder vide policy No. SCG-2081678 with opposite party.  The complainant has took up a policy of the opposite party with  half yearly premium of  Rs.25,000 for a period of 3 years in the year 2008.  He has paid 3 yearly premium i.e. in total Rs.1,50,000.  At the time taking the policy the opposite party’s agent made believe him that he will get double the amount after 3 years.  Thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party for getting the policy amount but opposite party given a statement of  account which shows that the complainant is eligible for getting an amount of Rs.82,841 only.  The complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,50,000 paid as premium.  The complainant was shocked by this and great mental agony was caused by the act of the  opposite party and it amounts for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice sent by the Forum, opposite party made appearance and filed version.  The content of which is briefly stated below.

The opposite party denied the main allegations in the complaint. It is denied that complainant was assured by the opposite party that the return of double amount after 3 years.  The complainant filled and signed the proposal forum bearing No. NNU12951550 dated 04-07-2008. The proposed premium amounting to  Rs.25,000, has to be paid semi-annually and for which the sum was assured  Rs.5,00,000.  The opposite party further contended that the policy is a Aviva Sachin Century Plan Policy and date of final settlement was in 15-07-2017.  The opposite party further submit that on 05-08-2011 opposite party received a request from complainant to switch the fund in growth mode.  The claim for refund of the premiums paid contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence there was no deficiency of service and the complaint may be dismissed.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

 On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the  

         opposite parties?   

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get the  remedy   

          as prayed in the complaint?

3.  Relief and cost?

The evidence consists oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant.  No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party except marking Ext.B1 to B6.

Issues No. 1 to 3:

Admittedly complainant is a policy holder under the opposite party,  Aviva Insurance Company India Limited.  The case of the complainant is that the complainant opted to be a policy holder  believing the words of opposite party’s agent, complainant has paid 3 yearly premium i.e. in total  Rs.1,50,000 after 3 years he will get double amount, but as per the statement of account of the opposite party, the complainant is eligible to get Rs.82,841 only.

Complainant adduced evidence in tune with his pleadings by way of chief affidavit.  PW1 in his chief affidavit  stated that at the time of taking the policy opposite party’s agent assured that if regular premium paid for a continuous period of 3 years the complainant will get double amount.  Complainant paid total amount of Rs.1,50,000 as premium i.e. Rs. 25,000 per half year Ext.A1 proves that on 15^th July 2008, 15^th January 2009, 12^th August 2009, 2^nd March 2010, 6^th September 2010, and 17^th March 2011, Complainant has paid Rs.25,000 per half year for three years.

      The opposite party’s case is  that the complainant himself opted Aviva  Sachin Centaury Plan for 10 premium paying terms and for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000 for a premium amounting to Rs.25,000 which is to be paid semi-annually.  The opposite party further contended that opposite party received request from complainant to switch the fund in secure mode two times i.e.  Ext. B5 and B6.  So  the complainant is entitled get only  Rs.66,392 from the opposite party, and opposite party already sent cheque amount of Rs.66,392.

         We have gone through the complaint, averments, affidavit and documents, we feel that the complainant took the policy through opposite party’s agent believing his words.  In this case opposite party’s agent made misrepresentation for obtaining a customer.  The motto of the agent is only his commission.  The rule of law is that “Qui facit per alium facit perse” i.e. negligence of a litigant’s  agent is negligence of the litigant himself.  So we are of the opinion  that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Insurance is a contract, so opposite party has the duty to disclose entire fact before entering into the contract.  In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus opposite party is liable to pay complainant balance amount of premium paid by him i.e. Rs.83,608 along with Rs.1,500 as cost of the litigation.  This issue No. 1to 3 are answered  in favour of the complainant.  Order passed accordingly.

In the result, complaint allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.83,608(Rupees Eighty three thousand six hundred and eight only) as balance insurance premium amount together with Rs.1,500(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as  cost of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled for interest on insurance amount awarded @ 10% from the date of this order till the date of realization of the amount.  Complainant is also at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

                 Dated this,  the  9^th   day of  March , 2015.

                         Sd/-               Sd/-               Sd/-

                      President        Member             Member

                                                          APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 – Copy of   Policy Account statement dated 05-07-2012

A2-   Policy document

Exhibits  for the opposite party

B1- Copy of Annexure

B2- Copy of filled proposal form

B3- Copy of Schedule

B4- Copy of Standard Terms and Conditions

B5- Copy Endorsement Filing dated 22-07-2011

 B6- Copy Endorsement Filing dated 09-05-2011

Witness examined for the complainant 

PW1-Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil                      

                                                               //Forwarded By Order//

                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT