| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 381 of 11-09-2013 Decided on 28-01-2014 Gursewek Singh S/o S. Balwant Singh, aged about 49 years, now R/o Q. No. C-822 (T-4), Thermal Colony, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, The Mall, Near Axis Bank, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge/authorized signatory HDFC Bank Ltd, (erst-while Centrurion Bank of Punjab), Branch : Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member For the Complainant : Sh. J P S Brar, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite party : Sh. Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite party No. 1. Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 2. O R D E R VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant was having his bank account with opposite party No. 2. The complainant alleged that the officials of opposite party No. 2 approached the complainant in the month of May/June, 2006 for the purchase of life insurance policy of opposite party No. 1 on the pretext that they have joint venture/joint business interest with Aviva Company for the sale of their insurance policies. They further allured the complainant that in case of purchase of life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, he has to pay three regular annual premiums of Rs. 50,000/- and he shall be allotted the units of Aviva Life Insurance Company and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each shall be invested in equity/mutual funds/other savings scheme as per plan and the units allotted to the complainant shall be under plan 'Life Long Unit Linked Fund' and the life of the complainant shall be insured for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- till the withdrawal or refund of the amount by the opposite parties to the complainant. It was conveyed to the complainant that he may get refund of the amount and there is no maturity date of the said policy. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- through cheque and policy No. NLG1244661 dated 12-6-2006 was issued to him. The complainant alleged that he deposited the said amount under the bonafide impression that he has to deposit only three annual regular premiums of Rs. 50,000/- each and he shall get almost double the amount so deposited by him, from the opposite parties on completion of three years. The complainant alleged that on receipt of first premium receipt, he came to know it is a regular policy and there is no maturity date and date of last premium payment was shown to be as 12-06-2050. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 who in turn allured him that he has the option to withdraw the amount after three years with accrued profit thereof and he can get the policy cancelled within free look period on receipt of policy, if he desire so. Thereafter the complainant deposited two more annual premiums of Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2007 and 2008 respectively. The complainant further alleged that as per verbal discussions, after the deposit of three regular premiums, he stopped paying further premium. Since he was not in need of money, he did not apply for refund, moreover, the opposite parties conveyed him to remain investor to get the higher return. The complainant approached the opposite parties about 4/5 months back, to get the surrender value/fund value alongwith expected return thereof and the officials of opposite party No. 2 obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank printed forms without disclosing the contents. The complainant further alleged that he deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the opposite parties but the opposite party No. 1 has made the payment of Rs. 80,357/- vide cheque No. 10043 dated 14-5-2012 to the complainant. On receipt of said payment, he again approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the entire payment, but no effect. The complainant further alleged that he has been running pillar to post to get his remaining amount of Rs. 69,643/- alongwith accrued profit/expected return/income, as promised by the opposite parties, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 69,643/- with interest alongwith compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statement. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement has stated that opposite party No. 2 was a referral partner of opposite party No. 1 and at present it has no relation with opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions and benefits of all plans, opted to purchase Life Long Unit Linked Plan for this purpose, he filled a proposal form bearing No. NU10116428 on 31-3-2006, wherein the name of the policy is mentioned as Life Long Plan and the complainant opted to pay Rs. 50,000/- as annual premium with sum assured of Rs. 5,00,000/. The complainant opted type of fund as Unit Linked Fund in balance fund 100%. There is specific note in the proposal form that in unit linked plans, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted that the complainant paid three installments against the policy in question. Since the complainant did not pay any premium against the policy after paying three installments, the policy status converted into paid up policy on 17-7-2009. The complainant surrendered the policy and the surrender value was paid to him as per terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party No. 2 in its written statement denied that insurance policy of opposite party No. 1 is attached under opposite party No. 2 and any of its official assured the complainant that he will have to pay premiums for 3 years only or he could get refund at any time after payment of premiums for 3 years. The opposite party Nos. 2 has denied that any of its official assured the complainant that he will get return of 25-30% p.a. or that he will get double the amount in 3 years. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that the policy and terms and conditions are related to opposite party No. 1 only. Regarding other averments, the pleading of opposite party No. 2 is that the same are related to opposite party No. 1. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. These are undisputed facts of the parties that the complainant purchased insurance policy Ex. OP-1/1 bearing No. NLG1244661; date of commencement 12-06-2006; sum assured Rs. 5,00,000/-' frequency – annual and date of final installment 12-06-2050. The complainant paid three annual premiums of Rs. 50,000/- each totaling to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant applied for surrender of policy and an amount of Rs. 80,357/- was refunded to to him being surrender amount. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the officials of the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the life of the complainant shall remained insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- and they shall invest the aforesaid amount in various schemes and their annual expected return is around 25-30% p.a., but only an amount of Rs. 80,350/- has been refunded to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the terms and conditions has neither been got signed from him nor the same were sent to the complainant, as such the same are not binding upon the rights of the complainant as if the terms and conditions were sent, the complainant definitely got the policy cancelled and in this way, the opposite parties have not provided the free look period to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has produced on file the account statement, which was never supplied to the complainant. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant himself surrendered the policy and the entire surrender value has been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the policy in question is a unit linked policy, hence it is not maintainable and in support of their submissions, they referred 2013 (3) CPJ 203 case titled Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz LIC. The submission of learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is that there is no cause of action against opposite party No. 2 as the claim in question is an insurance claim, the amount deposited by the complainant has reached the insurance company opposite party No. 1 and refund of unit value has also been made by opposite party No. 1. Admittedly, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 80,357/- stands paid to the complainant on account of surrender value. The opposite party No. 1 has placed on file Ex. OP-1/3 policy account statement. A perusal of this document reveals that on 12-6-2008, the complainant deposited the premium of Rs. 50,000/- and on 12-7-2008, policy administration charges have been deducted twice. On 17-7-2009, 2068.428 units have been cancelled. On 3-11-2007 when the second premium of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the complainant, the balance fund was shown nil. The complainant has stated that neither the details of amount paid to him has been furnished nor the statement Ex. OP-1/3 has ever been supplied to him by the opposite party No. 1. Hence, this practice of the insurance companies in keeping the consumers in dark while returning their hard earned money without furnishing them any details is not justified. Hence, this Forum is of the considered opinion that this act of opposite party No. 1 amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The opposite parties have taken support of the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, cited as 2013 (3) CPJ 203 case titled Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz LIC. With utmost regard and humility to the authority cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. In this regard, the support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case cited as 2012 (1) CPJ 166 (NC) titled Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, Vs. UTI of India & Anr wherein it has been held :- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(g), 21(a)(i) – Jurisdiction – Investment – Improving 'Livelihood Security'; of employees – Complaint – Maintainability of – Consumer – Commercial Purpose -Complainant/University invested funds of its employees with OP for their benefits – Some dispute regarding investments arose – Complaint filed – Deficiency in service alleged – Maintainability of complaint challenged on ground that complainant is not consumer as complainant investment money knowingly and investment could not be said to be for 'self employment ' or 'for earning his livelihood' – Reference made to decide that whether the complainant covered under definition of 'consumer' or not – It is clear that what was hired by complainant was services and not goods – Aim of Act is to protect economic interest of consumer as understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in larger sense of user of services – Explanation following Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Act would be clarificatory in nature and does not supplant meaning of word 'consumer' vis-a-vis 'services' as it appears in main section where exclusion clause will come into play if it is for 'commercial' purpose – Having gone through meaning of word 'commercial' defined under various law dictionaries, it is no doubt that words 'commercial purpose' would cover undertaking, objective which is to make a 'profit' – Investment made by University for improving 'livelihood security' of their employes who would be left with better 'financial security', after retirement – Therefore, investment shall not under any circumstances fall under word 'commercial' excluding complainant from definition of 'consumer' – In view of above, no merit in objection raised by OP – Complaint is maintainable.” In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to furnish the complete detail to the complainant to show that how they calculated the amount of Rs. 80,357/- which was paid to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay the amount if found due, after calculations as per policy terms and conditions, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record. Pronounced in open Forum 28-01-2014 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
(Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
