Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/110

Jasveer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Co.Ld - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Gupta

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  110 dated 21.03.2022.                                                       Date of decision: 03.04.2024. 

 

Jasveer Kaur aged 56 years wife of Paramjit, resident of B-23/3622, St. No.11, Near Sanjeevani Hospital, Opposite Shingar Cinema, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, Mobile No.99880-04811. PIN Code-141008, Email Id:Advocate

                                                Versus

  1. Aviva Life Insurance Limited, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Gold Course, DLF, Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003.
  2. Aviva Life Insurance Limited, Having Registered Office: 2nd Parkashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001.
  3. IndusInd Bank Limited, S.C.O. 12-13, Canal Colony, Near NRI Silk Store, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through         its Manager/ Officer In charge.

…..Opposite parties. 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Aman Sharma, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a housewife to whom the representative of the OPs allured to get insured for sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and last payment was made on 24.01.2021. The OPs asked the complainant to pay premium of Rs.39,934/- per year and her husband Paramjeet was nominee in policy no.TDW3130812. The amount was deducted from her account with OP3 IndusInd Bank Limited. The complainant stated that after 24.01.2021 i.e. after the last premium, when the OPs did not give any reply, she served legal notice dated 17.12.2021 upon the OPs through Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate calling upon them to refund the entire amount along with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days from receipt of legal notice. Upon this, the OPs sent letter dated 21.01.2022 and sought policy number from the complainant. The complainant further stated that in response to said letter received through Rahul C/o. Jyoti Sandhu, IndusInd Bank, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana OP3, she provided all the details in writing on the same day. However, the OPs have not done any needful till date and not responding to her requests which has caused mental and physical pain, agony, harassment to the complainant. The policy contains form printout in it which is not filled by her nor she gave any such details filled in it. Moreover, her signatures were obtained on blank forms, papers. Even she was not supplied with the policy in time. According to the complainant, the acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to return Rs.3,70,000/- along with interest of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed joint written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action; the complainant being estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint etc. OP1 and OP2 stated that they float the Insurance Schemes for public in general after prior approval of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) and all the terms and conditions of the respective Insurance Policies are set by the IRDA constituted under the IRDA Act, 1999 and Insurance Act, 1938.

                   Under the column facts of the case, OP1 and OP2 stated that they received duly filled and signed proposal/application form from the complainant for insurance of her life under “Aviva Dhan Vriddhi”, on the basis of which policy No.TDW3130812 was issued, detail of which is reproduced as under:-

Policy details

Particulars

Policy Number

TDW3130812

Proposal No.

NUP-14728665

Name of Policy

Aviva Dhan Vriddhi

Name of the Policyholder

Jasveer Kaur

Commencement date of the policy

24/01/2012

Annual Premium amount

Rs.39934/-

Premium frequency

Annual

Premium Payment Term

10 years

Policy Term

15 years

The policy was issued after payment of premium by the complainant and the policy documents along with forwarding letter was issued to the complainant. In case the policyholder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days free look period provision. The complainant did not raise any objection regarding the policy during free look period. However, the complainant sent legal notice dated 28.10.2016 through Ms. Rachna Dev, Advocate which was replied vide reply dated 18.11.2016 but no reply was received from the complainant. OP1 and Op2 further stated that the complainant in order to create fresh cause of action, sent another legal notice dated 03.09.2020 through Ms. Rachna Dev, Advocate which was replied vide reply dated 18.02.2021. The complainant had not paid the premium regularly and had paid one premium for first year only. As per clause 4 of the policy, if regular premium is not paid, the company allows the grace period of 30 days and if the premium is not paid in that grace period, then as per the said clause, the policy gets lapsed automatically and immediately. The policyholder has the option to revive the policy by paying all pending regular premiums along with applicable interest, taxes or penalty within a period of 2 years from the due date of first unpaid installment of regular premium. But the complainant did not choose to pay regular premium due to which after expiry of grace period of 30 days, the policy got lapsed on 24.02.2013. A reminder was sent to the complainant for reinstatement of policy within a period of 2 years but the complainant did not approach OP1 and OP2 and as such, the policy was got terminated after expiry of 2 years from the first due date of premium and therefore, the policy did not attain any surrender value/benefits.

                   On merits, OP1 and OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. OP1 and OP2 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

3.                OP3 filed separate written statement and by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; lack of cause of action; OP3 is not a necessary party to the present complaint etc. OP3 stated that the complainant has not sought any relief against it and its name be deleted from the array of respondents. The premium amount has been paid to OP1 and OP2 and if any amount is payable to the complainant, the same has to be paid by OP1 and OP2. OP3 further stated that if there is any dispute regarding to terms and conditions of the policy or regarding payment of amount of claim than that is to be resolved inter se between the complainant and OP1 and OP2.  OP3 has no role to play in resolution of dispute if any.

                   On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 copy of insurance policy, Ex. C2 is the copy of policy schedule, Ex. C3 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 17.12.2021, Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C8 is the copy of reply dated 21.01.2022, Ex. C9 is the copy of legal notice dated 21.01.2022 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Prateek Narang, Manager (Legal) of OP1 and OP2 along with document Ex. R1/1 is the copy of proposal form, Ex. R1/2 is the copy of policy, Ex. R1/3 is the copy of legal notice dated 28.10.2016 and reply dated 18.11.2016, Ex. R1/4 is the copy of legal notice and its reply dated 18.02.2021, Ex. R1/5 is the copy of letter dated 25.02.2013 for reinstatement of lapsed policy and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/3 of Ms. Shweta Choudhary, Authorized Signatory of OP3 and closed evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by the both parties.

7.                Relying upon the statement and declaration contained in proposal form Ex. R1/1, OP1 and OP2 have issued a policy to the complainant under Aviva Dhan Vriddhi. The details of the policy and the important points were furnished to the complainant vide Ex. C1. The relevant portion of Ex. C1 is reproduced as under:-

          “Your Product Details: Aviva Dhan Vriddhi

Policy No.

TDW3130812

Date of Commencement

24-Jan-2012

Policy Term

15 Years

Premium Paying Term

10 Years

Sum Assured

Rs.270,000

Premium Amount/Frequency

Rs.39,934/- Annual

Date of Maturity

24-Jan-2027

Last Premium Payment Date

24-Jan-2021

What happens if I stop paying premium within the first three (3) years?

We recommend that you pay all premiums to get complete benefits. Should you discontinue paying premiums within the first three (3) years of the policy, the policy will be closed (terminated) without any benefit or value.

Will I be able to reinstate my policy?

You can reinstate your policy with all benefits, within 2 years of the date you stopped paying your premiums. The reinstatement will be subject to:

  • Interest costs, compounded monthly (currently at 9% p.a., subject to change)
  • Reinstatement Fee of Rs.276 (including service tax and education cess @10.3%)
  • Medical examination if required by Aviva, with costs borne by you
  • Aviva reserves the right to accept or decline the request basis the findings

 

     

Perusal of Clause 4 of the terms and conditions under the head of Premium, Grace Period, Revival and Dealings with the Policy, it has been specifically stipulated that in case of non-payment of premium for the first three policy years, then the policy will be deemed to have automatically lapsed without any value and no benefit will be payable. Further the clause 5 pertains to Surrender Value which can only be acquired at the commencement of 4th policy year if the insured had paid all the premiums due for the first three policies. The complainant is consciously aware of this fact that she had paid premium of first year only. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, the policy lapsed on 24.02.2013. The terms and conditions are clear and explicit that non-payment of premium would result in automatic termination of the policy. Still the OPs sent a letter dated 25.02.2013 Ex. R1/5 affording another chance to the complainant for reinstatement of her lapsed policy but not only she has concealed the receipt of above said letter Ex. R1/5 but has also concealed other material facts from this Commission. In fact, the complainant through her Advocate Ms. Rachna Dev sent legal notice Ex/R1/3 whereby she demanded the payment of only one installment and expressed her inability to pay the remaining installments due to financial constraint and opted for surrender value of the policy. The said notice was suitably replied by the OPs. Another important fact also emerges out from the perusal of these documents that the complainant purchased two policies i.e. one policy under question and another policy No.NLS3063021. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that her signatures were obtained on blank papers or she was not aware of the content and context of the documents. Filing of the present complaint is clearly an attempt to abuse the process of law.

8.                Considering from another angle when the complainant was fully aware of letter Ex. R1/5 that her policy has lapsed in the year 2013 i.e. on 24.02.2013, the complainant was required to file the complaint within 2 years from the date of knowledge. As per Section 69 (1) of the Limitation Act provides that The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. As such, the complaint is hopelessly time barred and same deserves dismissal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate if the complaint is dismissed.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.04.2024.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.