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

========

Devinder Singh Grewal S/o late Sh. K.S. Grewal r/o Kothi No. 323, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 101 to 103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its authorized Officer.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                       PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL     MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Vikram Bajaj, Counsel for Complainant.

                Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for Opposite Party.    

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER 

              The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. Briefly stated the complainant who met with a serious accident back in 2002, opened an account in Centurian Bank on persuasion of   one Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Sales Executive and two other officials namely Amandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh. Thereafter in the year 2006/2007 on their inducement took two Insurance Policies  of Life Long Unit Linked Fund for a sum of Rs.7,84,000/- with annual premium of Rs.98,000/- and Rs.7,92,000/- with annual premium of Rs.99,000/- from the OP-company having Policy No. WLG 1425503   and WLG 1425389 after paying requisite amount. The complainant alleged that the OPs did not allow him to mention about his accident in the proposal form saying that the same is  not to be treated as any inhibiting factor for purchase of unit linked plan. Not only that the OP also got done medical of the complainant and on the persistent of the OP the doctor declare him fit. The complainant alleged that the agent of OP assured him of getting handsome return even if he surrenders the policy within five years. In 2009 the complainant got some suspicion regarding the return in case of surrender and he sent the OP email seeking refund of original amount of premium. Since the complainant did not continue to pay further premiums the OP vide its letter dated 23.12.2009 informed that policy has been reinstated and the premium is due for 9.2.2010. Thereafter, OP vide letter dated 17.3.2010 informed that the policy would be reinstated subject to payment of outstanding payment or the policy could be continued without paying premium and the Complainant would be entitled to get death benefit till the time, the surrender value is more than the first year premium or the policy can be surrendered subject to deduction of charges. The OP informed the complainant vide its letters dated 19.4.2010 and 19.5.2010 that as a rare exception, the company had decided to consider a change of product. After several request for surrender of the policy, the OP on 17.6.2010 by treating the two policies as surrendered, issued two cheques of Rs.98,000/- and Rs.99,000/- respectively to the complainant as surrender value of the policy. The complainant did not accept these cheques as he has deposited three installments of each of two policies aggregating to Rs.5,91,000/- but he was paid only Rs.98,000/- and Rs.99,000/- respectively as surrender value of the two policies.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

2.           OP in its written reply contended that the complainant is a well educated person and was fully aware with the terms and condition of the policy. The complainant was duly supplied original policies along with terms and conditions in 2006. The complainant himself signed a declaration, wherein he declared that he has been given all the information regarding the policy. Moreover the complainant did not exercise the option of free Look in period, wherein he had the right to review the policy and he could get cancelled the policy within 15 days. It has been admitted that the complainant was issued fore closure cheques of Rs.99,000/- and Rs.98,000/-. Rest of the allegations of the complainant has been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The factum of the Complainant having taken Policy No. WLG 1425389 with the product name “Life Long – Unit Linked Fund” for a sum assured of Rs.7.92 lacs, with regular premium amount of Rs.99,000/-, with date of commencement as 09/02/2007 and date of last payment of premium as 09/02/2034 and Policy No. WLG 1425503 with the product name “Life Long – Unit Linked Fund” for a sum assured of Rs.7.84 lacs, with regular premium amount of Rs.98,000/-, with date of commencement as 09/02/2007 and date of last payment of premium as 09/02/2034, has all been well established. The contention of the Complainant is that he deposited a total sum of Rs.5.91 lacs with the OP for the three consecutive annual premium installments of each of the aforesaid two policies.  Thereafter, he did not deposit the premium and requested the OP to refund the original amount paid by him. As against it, OPs contended that the Policies in question were issued to the complainant after receiving a proposal form dated 18.12.2006. It was fairly conceded that the premiums were payable on an annual basis and the Complainant was given all the information regarding the policies. The Complainant has paid only three premiums under the policies and thereafter, defaulted in paying the premium. Accordingly, as per the agreed Standard Terms & Conditions, the Complainant was entitled to the surrender value, which was accordingly paid to him in both the policies in question. Moreover, the complainant could return the policy documents, if not satisfied, within 15 days (free look period), which he did not do. 

6.          A perusal of the proposal forms at page no.23 and 30, placed on record by the OP would make it abundantly clear that the policies were having a regular premium of Rs.99,000/- & Rs.98,000/- respectively, and the said proposal forms were duly signed by the Complainant himself, agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Policies. All this shows that the Complainant had gone through all the details of the policies and had signed the same by accepting the terms and conditions thereof. The OPs placed their sole reliance on “Right to Reconsider” clause, a perusal of which makes it clear that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the Policies, he could have used the said clause to cancel the same.

7.           The Complainant did not opt to withdraw the amount within a period of fifteen days after the receipt of the Policy documents. When the Complainant had received the Policies, it was necessary for him to go through the same. The Complainant did not like to discontinue the Policies, nor asked for the refund of the premiums paid by him. Now, he cannot be heard saying that he was not aware about the features of the policies in question. The Complainant, however, has the right to surrender the Policy in accordance with the terms and conditions and the amount, if any, payable on surrender would be paid to him by the OP. We, therefore, don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OP because being Insurance Company, it had issued insurance policy as per the proposal form, which was duly signed by the complainant. In case, the complainant was not satisfied with the above said policy, then, he was at liberty to repudiate the same within 15 days i.e. during the right to reconsider period, but he had failed to do so. Hence, the prayer of the complainant that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5.91 lacs along with interest cannot be accepted, because the OP has ably proved on record that on surrender of the Policy, surrender value is payable. Moreover, since the Complainant was given all the information regarding the policy, which he has understood, therefore, at this juncture nothing lies in the mouth of the Complainant to turn around and claim refund of the premium amounts.

8.           In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OP. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.