Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/5/2016

Jasmer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Aggarwal

29 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/05/2016
Date of Institution	:	01/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	29/06/2017

 

Jasmer Kaur daughter of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Gharhuan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Aviva Life Insurance Company Private Limited, through its Director Registered Office at 2^nd Floor Prakashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 India.

2.     Branch Head, Aviva Life Insurance Company Private Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9, Chandigarh

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in the first week of August, 2006, OP-2 made a telephonic call to the complainant regarding launch of their Pension Plus Single Premium Unit Linked Policy.  Acting on various projections and assurances made by the OPs, the complainant invested a total sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in a single premium policy, but, the terms and conditions thereof were never explained to her. Neither the complainant was made aware about the free look period of 15 days nor any policy account statement was sent regularly.  After the death of her husband on 1.1.2005, the complainant went into financial crisis as there was no other male earning member left in the family. As per the complainant, she is in her ripe age and her son, who is a nominee in the insurance plan, is handicapped with 70% disability in left arm and left leg.  In such circumstances, the complainant could not correspond with the OPs in writing.  However, what to talk of giving compound interest on the amount of Rs.7.37 lacs compounded quarterly w.e.f. 30.9.2011 not even a single penny has been returned back.  It has been averred that the OPs have misrepresented the complainant to the extent that money invested by him would fetch excellent returns and would not decrease. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It has been denied that the complainant was called by OP-2 in 2006. The complainant submitted proposal form bearing No.NNU-10547158 through Centurion Bank of Punjab, Branch Chandigarh (now merged in HDFC Bank Limited) for purchasing policy under pension plus single premium and submitted the relevant documents. The complainant signed the proposal form after admitting the contents thereof to be correct. The policy in question was taken on 25.9.2006 whereas the present complaint was filed in the month of December 2015, but, no complaint regarding mis-selling and non-receipt of the policy was lodged. It has been averred that the policy in question matured on 30.9.2011 with maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/-.  The OPs wrote letter to the complainant to submit the required documents as per Article 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy for payment of the maturity amount but she did not submit the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OPs have not paid even a single penny to her despite the fact that the policy in question got matured on 30.9.2011 with maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/- which was obtained by the complainant in the year 2006 under the “Pension Plus Single Premium Unit Linked Policy”.  Evidently in para 6 of the written reply, the OPs have admitted the fact about the maturity value of the policy in question as Rs.6,78,916/- on the date of maturity i.e. 30.9.2011.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is only that they duly informed the complainant through letters Annexure R-1 and R-3 to R-5 dated 23.6.2011, 24.9.2012, 11.12.2012 and 10.6.2013 respectively and it was the complainant only who failed to submit the requisite documents, therefore, she could not be paid the maturity amount of the policy in question.
8.         We have gone through the entire evidence on record, but, there is not any postal record regarding the issuance of the abovesaid letters in the name of the complainant.  Thus, this being mere bald assertion, cannot be believed as such.
9.         It is the non-cooperative and unprofessional attitude of the OPs who instead of giving the due amount to the complainant raised an objection regarding the complaint being barred by limitation period. But, we are of the opinion that as the cause of action in the present complaint is continuous one, because the OPs are withholding the claim of the complainant, which they themselves have acknowledged in their written reply as well as letters (Annexure R-1 and R-3 to R-5), therefore, this objection is out-rightly rejected. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the act of the OPs in rejecting the reasonable and righteous claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused immense physical and mental harassment to her.  Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs jointly and severally are directed as under :-

(i)     to pay to the complainant the maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 30.9.2011 till the date of actual payment.

(ii)    to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/-as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 

11.         This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/06/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member