DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

­­­­

Rajinder Singh, aged 39 years, s/o Sh. Harbans Singh, R/o H.No. 112, Phase 3/A, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]      Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., SCO No. 180-182, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Branch Manager and Authorized Signatory.

[2]      The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, 3rd Floor, Opposite Golf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122003.

[3]      The Centurian Bank of Punjab, Phase VIII, Mohali [now HDFC Bank, Phase VII, Mohali], through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:           MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                         PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU               MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. G.D. Gupta, Adv for the Complainant.

Sh. Jai Pal Singh, Adv. for the OPs No.1 & 2.

None for OP No.3.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

[1]               Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the Complainant subscribed for a policy No. WTG1488295 with a name “Life Long Unit Linked Templated” with an annual premium of Rs.30,000/- and the sum assured was Rs.4,65,000/-. The said policy was for a plan up to 12.3.2052. The premium frequency for the said policy was annual. The Complainant paid the first three premiums continuously. Having paid Rs.90,000/- on inquiry Complainant found that the OPs were not honouring the advantages promised in the very beginning of the policy namely refund savings plus accrued bonus and interest after the cut off period of three years as assured at the time of selling of the policy. Hence Complainant alleges mis-selling and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The Complainant in the same breath also alleges that the Agent of the OP allured him that at the end of 3 years lock in period he can get the total premium deposited, refunded, along with accumulated bonus plus interest.  Though the policy subscribed was for five years whereas to his surprise the policy was issued for a period of 45 years.   Complainant in para 11 (pg.3) states that after the expiry of 3 years he requested the OPs to discontinue the policy as he was no longer interested to pay the premium for such a long time. Complainant further inquired about the amount that would be payable to him by writing a letter dated 25.2.2010 but no response was heard from the side of OPs.  The Complainant had repeatedly communicated with the OPs but without any success. The Complainant had even personally visited OPs Chandigarh Branch Office and delivered a copy of the letter dated 25.2.2010 on 18.3.2010 and obtained a receipt which is annexed at Annex.C/6.  The Complainant is aggrieved of no response from the side of the OPs.

[2]               The Complainant finally served a legal notice dated 5.4.2010 (Annex.C-6 & C-7) but claims that the OPs did not respond to the said notice and after a lapse of 30 days the Complainant has preferred the present complaint.

[3]               The Complainant in para 15 has alleged that as per Annex.C/8 which is from the record of the OPs dated 19.3.2010 clearly shows the total fund value of the said policy as Rs.89,583/- and as per the Complainant he was entitled for a refund of the said amount of Rs.89,583/- along with interest and bonus as payable at the end of three years, to which the OPs are not inclined to pay. 

[4]               Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, prays for directions of refund:-

            [a]        Rs.90,000/- premium amount of three years

            [b]        Rs.50,000/- compensation for harassment & mental agony

            [c]        Rs.15,000/- litigation expenses

[d]        Rs.25,000/- special damages, along with int. @12% of the entire amount of claim.

[5]               On notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 have filed their version/ written statement and have contested the claim of the Complainant, by raising preliminary objections to the fact that the said policy to which the Complainant has subscribed for was duly issued as per the IRDA Guidelines and on the proposal form filled up by the Complainant. While issuing the said policy the OPs No.1 and 2 had duly given him the option of right to REconsider the policy within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same.  The Complainant had the option to review and seek refund of the premium if he disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy within fifteen days of the receipt of the policy document, which is very much in consonance with IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations, 2002.   The OP 1&2 thus denying any deficiency on their part or unfair trade practice prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

[6]               On merits, OPs 1&2 have admitted that the Complainant approached the OP for issuance of an insurance policy. The proposal form bearing no. NNU11097602 dated 3.3.2007 which was received by OPs complete in all respect and duly signed by the Complainant after going through the “Key Featured Document”, Sample illustration of the maturity value and understanding the scope, meaning and contents of the proposal form. The copies of the same at annexed at Annex. A.

[7]               OPs have further stated that while submitting the proposal form the Complainant had also signed a declaration wherein at clause A he declares and states and “I/we full understand the meaning and scope of the proposal form and the questions in it and am/are submitting the completed proposal on my/our own accord, and I/we confirm that I/we have not been induced by anyone to make the proposal”.  Furthermore, in para 3 [pg.4] OPs mentioned that current status of the policy on the date of filing of their version which clearly shows the status of policy as inforced. In the same para, they further mentioned that while the policy document was dispatched the Complainant it included the standard terms & conditions of policy documents along with copy of proposal form and first premium receipt. The same is annexed as Annexure-B.

[8]               OPs No.1& 2 have admitted that on 9.4.2010, a legal notice was received from the Complainant and the same was duly replied by them and a copy of the reply is annexed at Annexure-C.

[9]               Giving a para-wise detailed reply, to the allegations of the Complainant, OPs No.1 & 2 have denied completely that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, submitting that it is very clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy that on maturity, the Complainant would be paid the higher of the fund value or the sum assured, therefore, the allegations regarding payment on maturity made by the Complainant, are baseless.  Hence, OPs No.1 & 2 prays for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

[10]              OP-3 in its version has categorically stated that the dispute mentioned in the present complaint is with regard to the insurance policy issued by OPs No.1 and 2. The answering OP-3 is in the business of Banking and, therefore, no relief can be claimed against it.  Furthermore, there is no deficiency in service is alleged on the part of OP-3 in the transaction hence the same deserves to be dismissed qua it.

[11]              OP-3 while stating facts has admitted to the fact that the Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited has now merged with H.D.F.C. Bank Limited and the amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited by the Complainant on 3.3.2007 while maintaining the savings bank account with answering  OP-3. The rest of the paras of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge as the same do not relate to them in any manner. Thus, OP-3 prays for the dismissal of the present complaint against them.

[12]              Parties led their respective evidences.

[13]              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

[14]              The present complaint actually pertained to the desire of the Complainant to surrender his policy after having paid three annual premiums and the Complainant has duly informed the OPs about his intentions and desires by writing the letter dated 25.2.2010, much in advance to the date on which the third premium installment had already been paid in the year 2009.  It is also clear that the Complainant made his desire known before the fourth premium installment was to be paid i.e. in the year 2010.  The option to surrender the policy was available to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy after the completion of payment of three installment premiums. We have gone through the entire reply/ version of OPs 1 & 2 but it is surprising that neither there is any separate annexure assigned to the documents attached with the version and affidavit numbered from pg. 19 to 36.  It is also noticed that in no part of the reply of the OPs No.1 & 2 they have admitted to the letter dated 25.2.2010 sent and hand delivered by the Complainant to OPs No.1 and 2 individually. As the entire complaint rests on this particular letter and it also creates the cause of action against OPs No.1 & 2 in the present complaint, we feel that OPs No.1 and 2 have deliberately tried to brush aside this issue by maintaining a silence.

[15]              OPs No.1 and 2 though categorically admitting to the receipt of legal notice dated 9.4.2010 which they claim was duly replied by them and as stated by them they had annexed Annexure-C of the same but there is no such document available on the file from where it could be established that the contentions of the affidavit are true and should be believed.  From this we again derive the same conclusion as mentioned above that OPs No.1 & 2 are merely trying to fill up the lacuna and at the same time fail to support the same by bringing on record any cogent and reliable evidence.

[16]              We have perused the terms and conditions submitted by the OPs No.1 & 2 and it is clear that the Complainant had qualified himself for the surrender of the said policy, as mentioned in Art.14 under the heading “Surrender Value”.  The letter dated 25.2.2010 of the Complainant to the OPs is a clear cut desire and intention of the Complainant to not to continue with the said policy and had actually inquired about the amount that he would receive after the date 12.3.2010. We feel that the OPs No.1 & 2 have failed to address the inquiry of the Complainant in totality. OPs No.1 & 2 though have written a letter dated 19.3.2010 wherein the total fund value of the policy of the Complainant is mentioned as Rs.89,583/-, clearly showing the status of the policy but the said detail of the policy is silent about the process the Complainant should follow in order to terminate or surrender his policy.  The document dated 19.3.2010 (Annex.C-8) as such is a policy accounts statement of the date 19.3.2010 i.e to say OPs No.1 & 2 did not write any letter to the Complainant in person through which they had addressed the demand as mentioned in the letter dated 25.2.2010 of the Complainant.       

[17]              It is also evident from the reply as well as the documents attached with the reply/ version that OPs No.1 & 2 wants to keep the issue of surrender of the said policy lingering indefinitely. Hence we find that the Complainant after having written the letter dated 25.2.2010 had not deposited any premium in the said policy and as such, the silence on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 with regard to the refund of the fund value of the Complainant is objectionable. At the most the OPs No.1 & 2 should have guided and helped the Complainant with regard to the refund as well as surrender of the policy for which the Complainant had expressly mentioned in his letter dated 25.2.2010.  

[18]              The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3, without costs.

[19]              In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to treat the letter dated 25.2.2010 as the request for surrender of the policy No. WTG1488295 and release the amount of fund value as on 25.2.2010, along with an interest @8% p.a., till it is paid.  However, OPs No.1 & 2 can make the standard deductions, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as applicable. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further saddled with Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs.  

[20]              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, OPs No.1 & 2 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, except for litigation expenses.  

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

Announced

05th December, 2011.                                                                         

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)