BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 126

Date of Institution : 7.5.2010

Date of Decision : 28.10.2010

Gurcharan Singh Brar s/o Bishan Singh aged 66 years resident of Village Romana Albel Singh District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp Golf Course, DLF Phase V Sector 43, Gurgaon 122 003, Haryana.

2. Naveen Kumar (Advisor No. Y0661109), Chhabra House No. 861, Gagneja Street, Jallalabad, Tehsil Jallalabad, District Ferozepur.

3. The Manager, HDFC Bank, B-X/740, Branch Office Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Sarbjit Singh Brar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Amrit Bansal counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

Sh. R.S. Kakkar counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Opposite party No. 2 exparte.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties due to Non Performance of the service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs. 95,000/- with interest from the deposit of the money to the complainant on account of harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has an account in the HDFC Bank, Kotkapura. In the year 2006 when he had gone to bank the dealing clerk of the Bank i.e. Opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the Aviva Insurance Company and get very good interest. On this assurance the complainant paid Rs. 25,000/- to Naveen Kumar and after a few days certain documents were given to the complainant by the said agent. Later on, it transpired that in fact it was an insurance policy No. RPG1367142 dated 2.11.2006 . When he approached the opposite party No. 2 and asked why the money was deposited as premium then he assured that the amount would be returned with interest after one year. The complainant after one year approached the opposite party No. 1 to take back the money but the said company replied that the money would be returned after two years from the date of deposit. Again, after the completion of two years complainant approached said company but they replied that money would be refunded after one more year. When again he approached the opposite party No. 1 then the company told that they will not refund the money. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to consider his case properly and refund the amount as per their commitment but the employees of the company did nothing, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.5.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant who is a matured and educated person have made the investment by his own free will without any pressure or misrepresentation and made a declaration that he has been given all the information regarding the policy, which he has understood but he refused to comply with the requirements of the policy and to claim refund of the premium amount. Moreover the complainant was issued policy schedule and other documents in which it is clearly explained that the consumer can cancel his policy within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy document but he never applied for the same. The complaint may be dismissed on the ground of limitation as the disputed policy was issued on 31^st October, 2006 and the complainant has for the first time approached the opposite party in January, 2010 that is more than 3 years of commencement of the policy. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the features of policy were duly explained to the complainant at the time of commencement of the policy by way of a key feature document by the insurance agent. On receipt of policy documents the complainant never approached the opposite party with any kind of complaint. The complainant never approached the opposite party before January, 2010. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, premium receipt Ex.C-2 and closed her evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Malhotra Ex.R-1, copy of application form of policy Ex.R-2, terms and conditions of policy Ex.R-3, legal notice dated 30.12.2009 Ex.R-4, legal notice Ex.R-5, copy of terms and conditions of policy Ex.R-7 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajat Bhatia, Branch Incharge, HDFC Bank, Kotkapura Ex.R-6 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the complainant was allured into purchasing a Pension Linked Insurance Plan on false misrepresent ion that if he deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for a year he could get lot of interest in a period of one year. However, inspite of several visits on completion of each year for three years complainant failed to get any satisfactory response in respect of return of his original amount and the interest accrued thereupon. The opposite parties continued to put him off on the one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to refund the amount. Therefore, complainant is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- with interest besides compensation and litigation expenses.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. He has contended that disputed policy was issued on 31^st October, 2006 and the complainant approached the opposite parties for the first time in January, 2010 i.e more than three years after the commencement of the policy. In respect of knowledge of the nature of the policy reliance has been placed upon proposal form filled in by the complainant himself Ex.R-2 and standard terms and conditions Ex.R-3 besides documents referred to above. In his view the policy in this case has lapsed as the complainant failed to pay second installment which became due in the next year. In this respect he has invoked Article-1(4) of Standard terms and conditions.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The factum of proposal form Ex.R-2 having been filled and signed by the complainant himself has not denied by the complainant. His only plea is that he could not read the contents of the booklet the same being in English cannot be accepted in view of the fact that proposal form Ex.R-2 stands filled in and signed by the complainant himself. It is difficult to otherwise digest that complainant was not aware of insurance policy in question and that he was mislead to purchase the same by Naveen Kumar opposite party No. 2. Surprisingly enough, on non appearance of opposite party No. 2 and order passed against him to proceed against exparte on 27.8.2010, complainant took no steps to examine him to buttress his stand.

11. Article-1(4) of Standard Terms and Conditions Ex.R-3 lays that if the policy is not reinstated within two years from the due date of first unpaid installment on regular premium the policy will automatically be terminated without any value at the date of expiry of the reinstatement period and the surrender value in respect of Top Up Premium if any as per Article-8 shall be paid to the policy holder at the expiry of the reinstatement period and commencement of the fourth policy year which ever is later. Complainant has not paid any installment of premium in the next year after commencement date of policy i.e. 31^st October, 2006. The stance of the complainant that he approached the opposite party after one year and in two successive years is not substantiated by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, in our considered opinion complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation which in any case started in 2007 on refusal of the opposite party to redress his grievance and to concede his request for refund of the amount already deposited by him with interest.

12. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant Gurcharan Singh is dismissed having been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 28.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)