DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.213 of 16-05-2013
Decided on 30-10-2013
Rajinder Kumar Garg aged about 58 years S/o Hans Raj Garg R/o House No.75, Bank Colony, Panchvati Nagar, 30 ft. wide road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, head office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Gold Course, DLF-Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director.
2.Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, 5th floor, JMD Square, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Manager.
3.Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, having its office at Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
4.Indusind Bank, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Ms.Navneet Kumari, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3.
Opposite party No.4 ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having a bank account bearing No.0125-K-51337001 with the opposite party No.4, at Bathinda. On 29.6.2007, the complainant opened 5 years insurance policy with the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and the premium of the same is Rs.25,000/- per annum. The opposite parties assured the complainant that they would pay the dividend/profit minimum equal to 24% interest to him and the value of the life insured amount was Rs.2,50,000/-. The opposite parties issued the insurance policy bearing No.WLG-1602594 dated 29.6.2007 for Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant and got the signatures of the complainant on some blank unfilled forms issued by the opposite parties. The complainant has paid all 5 premiums of the abovesaid policy to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not sent the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy. The abovesaid insurance policy was to be matured in the year 2012, but when the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the value of the insured amount with interest and bonus, he was shocked to know that the term of the abovesaid policy is not 5 years, rather it is 35 years. At the time of purchase of the abovesaid insurance policy, the complainant was of the age of 51 years and if the term of the abovesaid insurance policy was taken to be 35 years, it would be matured when he would attain the age of more than 86 years. The opposite parties would have told this fact to the complainant that the abovesaid policy is for the period of 35 years, he might have not opted to adopt the abovesaid policy, but they in-connivance with each other concealed this fact. Hence the present complaint.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the proposal form clearly states that the policyholder has to read the key features document carefully that elaborate the terms of the abovesaid policy including the premium paying term. The key features document of 'life long' policy makes it clear that 'policy term' will continue till policyholder attains the age of 85 years and accordingly, the term of the policy will be determined. In the life long policy, the proposer having different age group applying for the policy will have different term of the policy, for example a proposer aged about 50 years applying for the life long policy needs to continue with the policy for 35 years. The proposer filling the proposal form is not required to write term of the policy which is according to his age. Moreover the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy clearly states under the definition clause about the premium payment term. The key features also states about the entry age of the life assurds i.e. 18 years to 60 years. The complainant himself approached the adviser of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and got the information about all their plans from him and after having understood all the terms and conditions of all the plans, he opted to purchase a life long unit linked plan, for this he duly filled a proposal form No.NUP10569512 on 14.6.2007 and has signed the proposal form declaration. The underwriters had issued the policy bearing No.WLG-1602594 and sent the policy documents alongwith the entire terms and conditions through courier vide airway bill No.539441173 to the complainant on the given address and the same has been received by him and is in his possession and moreover he admitted this fact. As per the provisions of the Insurance Act and the policy documents, the policyholder has an option to reconsider the policy, the policyholder has the right to review the policy terms and conditions and cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. If the policyholder cancel his/her policy, the premium will be refunded after adjusting for adverse movement in the units prices less charges incurred on account of the stamp duty and medical expenses but in the present case, the complainant did not do so from this it is clearly established that he agreed to the same. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy that are already in the possession of the complainant, there is specifically mentioned 'in Unit Linked Plans, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policyholder'. The actual payment of the benefits in this policy will vary, based on the actual performance of the Investment Fund(s) chosen by the policyholder. The unit price of any investment fund may increase or decrease as per the performance of the financial markets. The past performance of these or other investment funds offered by the company do not indicate the future performance of these investment funds. The names of the investment funds and that of the policy do not in any way indicate the quality of the returns that can be expected from the investment funds. The insured opted a 'Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan' and the same is entirely different from the 'Traditional Insurance Plan' and is subject to different prospectus. The sum assured in the abovesaid policy is Rs.2,62,500/- not Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant paid 5 installments against the abovesaid policy to the opposite parties. The complainant has purposely denied the fact that he has not received the policy documents, which were provided by the opposite parties to him. The complainant regularly paid 5 premiums against the abovesaid policy but at no one stage he raised such objection which clearly shows his malafide intention. The complainant has filed an application before the Ombudsman at Chandigarh but withdrawn the same. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have already returned the entire premium deposited by the complainant against the abovesaid policy. The complainant is not entitled for any further amount. As such there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3.
3. Notice by hand/dasti was sent to the opposite party No.4 and the same was received on 17.6.2013 by Indusind Bank i.e. opposite party No.4, but despite receiving the summons none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.4 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.4.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant has filled the proposal form No.NUP10569512 on dated 14.6.2007 and policy bearing No.WLG-1602594 was issued to him. The complainant has paid the premiums of Rs.25,000/- per annum for 5 years, in this way he has deposited the total amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.
7. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant submitted that the abovesaid policy is for the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- . The complainant had paid 5 premiums to the opposite parties. The abovesaid insurance policy was matured in the year 2012, but when the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the value of the insured amount with interest and bonus, he was shocked to know that the term of the abovesaid policy is not 5 years, rather it is 35 years. At the time of obtaining the abovesaid insurance policy, the complainant was of the age of 51 years and if the term of the abovesaid insurance policy was taken to be 35 years, it would be matured when he would be of the age of more than 86 years. The complainant approached the insurance Ombusdsman, Chandigarh, but due to the technical reasons and legal complications as the post of Ombusdsman was lying vacant, the complainant withdrew the said application. The complainant has already received the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and is entitled to get the dividend/profit minimum equal to interest @ 24% p.a. alongwith bonus and other benefits but the opposite parties have refunded only Rs.1,25,000/- i.e. principal amount to him.
8. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 is that in actual the sum assured of the abovesaid policy is Rs.2,62,000/- not Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant has purchased life long unit linked policy and as per this policy, the policy term will continue till the policyholder attains the age of 85 years and accordingly, the term of the policy will be determined. In the life long policy, the proposer having different age group applying for the abovesaid policy will have different term of the policy. In the case of the complainant he was of 51 years of age at the time of applying for the life long policy and the same needs to be continued. The complainant got the abovesaid policy for 35 years, at the time of filling the proposal form, he is not required to write term of the abovesaid policy which is according to his age. Moreover the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy clearly states under the definition clause about the premium payment term. The terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy are duly admitted by the complainant. The complainant had made the payment of 5 premiums and accordingly the amount deposited by him has already been returned by the opposite parties to him. Now nothing remained due against the complainant. This fact has also admitted by the complainant that the opposite parties have returned the entire amount deposited by him i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-.
9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that vide Ex.C9, the date of commencement of the abovesaid policy is shown as 19.6.2007; sum assured:-Rs.2,50,000/-; regular premium amount:-Rs.25,000/-; premium frequency:-annual; allocation rate (%):-95.0 and the date of last payment of premium:-29.6.2040, in this date of birth of the insured is mentioned as 2.4.1956 and at the time of obtaining the abovesaid policy, he was of 51 years of age. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in their reply that the sum assured is Rs.2,62,500/- not Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas their own document Ex.C9 shows that the sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/-. A further perusal of documents placed on file shows that vide Ex.C10 the complainant has made the complaint against Indusind Bank, Branch Bathinda, Punjab State & Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., in this letter he has specifically mentioned that 'he opened his saving bank account No.0125-K51337-001 with Zero balance and at the same time an insurance policy bearing No.WLG 1602594 of Aviva Life Insurance Company was also given to him. The branch manager of the abovesaid bank charged heavy amount from the complainant for not maintaining minimum balance in the abovesaid saving bank account, whereas it was with Zero balance. The complainant asked to stop the insurance policy and demanded refund of amount deposited by him. The concerned officer informed that the amount will be refunded after 35 years. These facts were not brought to his notice earlier'. In this letter Ex.C10 the complainant has requested to issue the necessary directions to refund his amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest immediately. A further perusal of Ex.C12 shows that the complainant has written a letter dated 29.5.2013 giving his saving account No.0125-K51337-001 with Zero balance and at the same time the opposite parties have issued him an insurance policy bearing No.WLG 1602594 of Aviva Life Insurance Company, in this letter he has requested to issue the necessary directions to refund the amount of Rs.1 lac with interest immediately. These two letters written by the complainant shows that if the complainant was not interested to continue this policy, he should have availed the option of free look period of 15 days and can request the opposite parties to discontinue his policy but he has regularly been paying the premiums. The request in both the letters is different as on letter dated 29.5.2011, the complainant has requested for the refund of Rs.1 lac, whereas on letter 14.7.2011, he has requested for the amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. A further perusal of Ex.C13 shows that the commencement date of the policy is 29 June, 2007; sum assured:-Rs.2,62,500/-; policy term:N/A; premium frequency:-annual; premium amount:-Rs.25,000/- and the total fund value:-Rs.64,661/-.
The complainant has specifically submitted that the opposite parties conveyed him afterwards that the abovesaid policy is for the period of 35 years, if they have conveyed this at the time of issuance of the abovesaid policy, the complainant would not have opted to adopt the abovesaid policy but the opposite parties in-connivance with each other concealed this fact. A perusal of Ex.C9 shows that the date of last payment of premium is 29.6.2040 and the premium frequency is 'Annual', meaning thereby the complainant has to pay the premium of Rs.25,000/- annually till 29.6.2040. Ex.C10 and Ex.C12 the letters dated 14.7.2011 and 29.5.2011 shows that the complainant himself was not clear about the amount to be refunded to him. In the letter dated 29.5.2011, Ex.C12, he has requested for the refund of Rs.1 lac, whereas in the letter dated 14.7.2011, Ex.C10, he has requested for the refund of Rs.1,25,000/-. In the prayer to the main complaint the complainant prayed to pay the dividend/profit equal to interest @ 24% p.a. on Rs.1,25,000/- the principal amount refunded by the opposite parties alongwith interest, bonus and other benefits attached to the abovesaid policy. The insurance policy is not fixed deposit that yields interest on it. The insurance is a contract that is to indemnify the loss in case of any mishap. In the case in hand the abovesaid policy is 'life long unit linked' in which some amount of the premium is to be invested in the unit funds and the remaining amount is to be paid as premium for the life insurance. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have mentioned the different amount of sum assured as in Ex.C9, it has been mentioned sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas in Ex.C13, it has been mentioned the sum assured as Rs.2,62,500/- and at the same time the complainant is also not ascertained about the amount of refund that he wants to seek as in Ex.C10, he has prayed for the amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, whereas in Ex.C12 he has prayed for the refund of Rs.1 lac.
10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it is proved that the premium amount deposited by the complainant for 5 years. On the request of the complainant the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has already been refunded by the opposite parties. During the period of 5 years the complainant remained covered for the risk of his life and some amount out of the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has been invested in the unit funds which is subject to fluctuation of the market value but the opposite parties have refunded the full premium amount of Rs.1,25,000/- without deducting anything from the premium paid for 5 years and nothing is due towards the opposite parties.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum
30-10-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
