DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.109 of 07-03-2011

Decided on 06-06-2011

Mrs. Khushpinder Kaur Brar W/o Ravinder Singh, aged about 39 years R/o H. No. 296, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Bathinda.

.......Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Branch Office, The Mall, Bathinda through its Manager.

2. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Registered Office 2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through Managing Director & CEO.

3. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, through its M.D.

......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on 13-06-2007, the complainant had purchased one policy vide No. WTG1591439 from the opposite parties through their agent. At the time of purchasing the said policy, the agent of the opposite parties allured the complainant that it is best plan and there is no maturity date and if the complainant would pay three installments regularly and she did not want to continue the said policy, then the amount paid by her would be refunded alongwith interest. The complainant paid three annual installments of Rs.10,000/- each against the said policy regularly. Thereafter on 01-03-2011, the complainant approached the opposite parties to know the status of her policy with the request to refund the said amount alongwith its benefits or interest accrued thereon. The opposite party No. 1 neither refunded the amount nor gave any satisfactory reply in this regard. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant.

2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite parties for issuance of an Insurance policy. The Proposal Form bearing No. NNU10776385 dated 12^th June, 21007 was received by the opposite parties which was duly filled and signed by the complainant after going through the “Key feature Document”. On the basis of proposal form and the declaration made thereunder, the opposite parties issued a Life Long Unit Linked Policy bearing No. WTG1591439 to the policy holder on 13^th June, 2007. The salient feature of the policy were :

   a. Commencement date 13^th June, 2007

   b. Sum assured Rs. 1,70,000/-

   c. Premium Frequency Annual

   d. Regular Premium amount Rs. 10,000/- (RP)

   e. Premium paid till date Rs. 30,000/-

   f. Status of policy Inforce Notice Period

   The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on 14^th June, 2007 vide Overnite Courier Receipt No. 539449319 and delivered on 16^th June, 2007. The policy document included the policy schedule, the “Right to Reconsider” notice, the standard terms and conditions, copy of proposal form and the first premium receipt. As per the “Right to Reconsider” notice, the complainant had that option to get the policy cancelled within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents in case she was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter the complainant duly paid 2 more premiums under the policy without raising any dispute with regard to the features of the policy for more than 3 years. They further pleaded that the Unit Linked Products/Policies are Market Linked Policies and are dependent on the market fluctuations and the investment risk is borne by the Policyholder. All the dealings in the policy were as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The complainant and the opposite parties have entered into a contract of insurance and no party should be allowed to violate the same. The complainant cannot ask for refund of the premium amount under the policy. Only a surrender value is payable which will be calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant purchased Insurance policy No. WTG1591439 with commencement date 13^th June, 2007 sum assured Rs. 1,70,000/-, premium frequency was annual and the regular premium amount was Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant submitted that he purchased this policy on the allurement of the agent of the opposite parties that there is no maturity date and if the complainant would pay three installments regularly, she can discontinue her policy at any time and could get the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and other benefits. The complainant paid three annual installments to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each.

6. The submission of the opposite parties is that the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on 14^th June, 2007 vide Overrnite Courier No. 539448319 and delivered on 16^th June, 2007. The policy documents included the policy schedule, the Right to Re-consider Notice, the standard terms and conditions, copy of proposal form and the first premium receipt. As per the 'right to reconsider' notice the complainant had the option to get the policy cancelled within 15 days of receipt of policy document in case he was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions of the policy but the complainant has not availed the right of reconsideration.

7. A perusal of Ex. C-2 shows that complainant had deposited Rs. 30,000/- from 13th June, 2007 to 16^th August, 2010. The complainant had specifically pleaded that the opposite parties have not issued and cleared any terms and conditions to the complainant. The courier receipt Ex. R-5 produced on file by the opposite parties does not reveal that what documents were sent to the complainant i.e. as to whether terms and conditions were sent to her or not. The opposite parties have placed on file Aviva Standard Terms & Conditions Ex. R-4. These terms and conditions are not signed by any of the parties or by the complainant which means that these terms and condition are never supplied to the complainant. When there is no evidence that terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant, she is not bound by such terms and conditions.

A perusal of documents placed on file reveals that there is no maturity date mentioned in the policy. Clause 8 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Standarization of terms & conditions of ULIP Products and treatment of lapsed policies) Regulations, 2010 reads as under :-

“8. Surrender Charges :

It is observed that Insurers apply different surrender charges while paying the surrender value to the insured. After due consideration of various practices, the Authority orders that the surrender charges (as percentage of fund value) shall not exceed the limits specified below :-

Year Policy Period

Less than 10 years More than 10 years

1^st year 12.50% 15%

2^nd year 10.00% 12.50%

3^rd year 7.50% 10%

4^th year 5.00% 7.50%...........”

 

As discussed above, as no maturity date of policy has been mentioned, period of policy cannot be assessed. Thus, deduction cannot be made according to aforesaid clause 8 of IRDA, as alleged by the opposite parties. Since terms and conditions were not signed by the complainant as well as the opposite parties, these terms and conditions were neither supplied nor conveyed to the complainant and as such, opposite parties are not entitled to make deduction on any count. The complainant has alleged that she approached the opposite parties on 01-03-2011 to know the status of her policy and requested them for refund of the same, but the opposite party No. 1 neither refunded the amount nor gave any satisfactory reply. The date of commencement of the policy was 13^th June, 2007. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence on file, this Forum is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is allowed refund of her premium amount. The interest on the premium amount could not be granted to her as she remained covered under the policy during the aforesaid period.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and cost. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 30,000/- alongwith compensation and cost to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- would yield interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of this order till realisation. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

06-06-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member