Complaint presented on  :     14.08.2013

                                                                   Order pronounced on     :     09.03.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,                   :       MEMBER II

   MONDAY THE  09^th   DAY OF MARCH 2015

C.C.NO.155/2013

J. Prakash

Flat No.3, Baywaters,

41, Rukmini Road,

Kalakshetra Colony,

Chennai 600 090.                                                           ...  Complainant

..Vs..

Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd.,

Ashirwad Towers, III Floor, Flat Bo. 2,

Old No. 182, Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.                                 ... Opposite party

Date of complaint         :        14.08.2013

For Complainant               :         Party in Person     

For Opposite parties                   :        M/s. Elveera Ravindran & K.Vinod, Advocates

O R D E R

THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, PRESIDENT               

          Complaint filed  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay  a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in refund of all the premiums paid less the amount withdrawn and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and torture and to  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards costs of this complaint.

1. Complaint in brief :

 The complainant availed a Life Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy under No.WLG1606262, having the product code WLG and the sum assured was Rs.12,60,000/- and the commencement of the policy was on 30.06.2007. The annual premium  of sum of Rs.1,80,000/- payable on the policy till 30.06.2013 and the nominee is the wife of the complainant.  As per article 16(1) of the  policy, the policy holder is entitled to make   partial withdrawal by redeeming  a portion of the accumulated units  subject to the conditions  mentioned in the policy.  The total number of partial withdrawal does not exceed four in a year.   The complainant had been making partial withdrawals for a number of years. On 17.09.2012 the  complainant applied for a withdrawal of Rs.2,03,000/- and  for which  he is entitled and however  the opposite party  remitted  only a sum of Rs.25,000/- in his bank account.  Then the complainant wrote several letters to the opposite party that he is entitled for a  partial withdrawal of Rs.2,03,000/- and however the opposite party replied that, he is only entitled for Rs.25,000/-.  Finally, the opposite party accepted  that the complainant is entitled for a withdrawal of Rs.1,81,000/- in addition to Rs.25,000/- by a email dated  31.03.2013 and also offered to refund the NAV of 17.09.2012 for the balance amount of Rs.1,81,000/- with 6% interest from 20.09.2012 to 21.01.2013  amounting to Rs.3,689/- or refund the proceeds for the amount of Rs.2,03,000/-.  After struggle over 9 months the opposite party  accepted their fault on the persistent attempt made by the complainant. The complainant rejected the offer made by the opposite party by his letter dated 05.02.2013 as the same amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency  of the opposite party and the complainant sent an email dated 19.04.2013 after for cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount already paid without deduction of any charges.   The opposite party once again sent an email dated 25.04.2013 offering compensation and however  as the complainant lost his confidence with the opposite party, he insisted for the termination of the policy and refund of the amount paid by him till date.  However the opposite party refused the request of the complainant, though the complainant is entitled for the same as a consumer. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint praying to refund a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as premium also, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation mental agony and towards Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

2.   Written version in brief:

      The complainant after understanding the  terms and conditions of the policy,  he  submitted the proposal from dated 22.06.2007   for issuance of  life long policy and on the basis the life long policy no.WLG1606262 issued to the complainant assuring a sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- with early premium of Rs.1,80,000/- commencing from 30.06.2007 and the last payment of premium is 30.06.2033. As per the right to reconsider notice, the policy holder can cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents.   The complainant did not opt to cancel the said policy, but continued the same.   According to the request of the complainant  on 14.07.2010 a partial withdrawal of Rs.1,20,499/- was processed, another partial withdrawal was processed for an amount of Rs.1,20,499/- on 26.07.2010 and another partial withdrawal was processed as per the request of the complainant on 17.09.2012 an amount of Rs.25,000/- was credited in the complainant  account. The policy holder sent various letters demanding partial withdrawal of Rs.2,06,000/-. During further investigation it was found that the complainant was actually eligible partial withdrawal of                 Rs. 2,06,000/- and however due to some technical issues it was wrongly process for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 17.09.2012 and the opposite party made sincere apologies  vide their email dated 31.01.2013 to the complainant  and they further answered that refund to be processed to the complainant for the balance of Rs.1,81,000/- with 6% interest for an amount opposite party Rs.3689/- or refund  to be processed for an amount of Rs.2,03,000/-.  In view of these facts the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  Further it is well settled law that any policy obtained for the purpose of earning profits the policy holder cannot be considered as a consumer under the Act. Therefore, it is prayed dismiss the complaint with cost.   

3.       The Complainant had filed  his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were  marked  on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party filed his proof affidavit and No document marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The points for consideration

1)  Whether  the opposite party committed  deficiency in service?

2)   To what relief the complainant is entitled?

5. POINT NO : 1

The admitted facts are that the complainant  availed a Life Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy under policy no. WLG1606202     for a sum assured was Rs. 12,60,000/- and annual premium of Rs.1,80,000/-  and the policy period was from 30.06.2007 to 30.06.2033 and the complainant nominated his wife Mrs. Hemamalini Prakash as his nominee and the policy with conditions issued by the opposite party to the complainant is marked as Ex.A1 and the article 16 of schedule Ex.A1, provides for partial withdrawal and accordingly  at the  request of the complainant  partial withdrawal was processed on 14.07.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,20,499/- and another sum of Rs.1,20,499/- was processed on 26.07.2010 and  the complainant requested another partial withdrawal on 17.09.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,03,000/- and however the opposite party  processed only for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Ex.A2 in favour of the complainant and thereafter the complainant wrote several correspondence to the opposite party that he is entitled for partial withdrawal of Rs.2,03,000/- and the same was negatived by the opposite party  and however, thereafter the opposite party realized their mistake and sent Ex.A14 letter dated 02.01.2013 to the complainant that due to some technical issues the wrong partial withdrawal  amount of Rs.25,000/- was processed and also informed that letter that the complainant is eligible for refund of Rs.1,87,000/- and after deducting the already paid amount of Rs.25,000/- the complainant is eligible for a sum of               Rs.1,62,000/- and requested the complainant to submit a fresh request  and however the complainant sent Ex.A15 rejecting offer made by the opposite party in Ex.A14 and further correspondence. 

6.       The complaint filed before this forum on 05.08.2013 against the opposite party.  The complainant  request for partial withdrawal was rejected by the opposite party on 25.09.2012 under Ex.A2.   Though there were several correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party and the opposite party also reiterated that  the complainant is not entitled only for a partial withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/-, later the opposite party themselves realized in   3 months and sent Ex.A14 dated 02.01.2013 to the complainant that they have wrongly processed  the amount and requested him to make a fresh partial withdrawal for a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- besides the sum of Rs.25,000/- already paid  establishes that the opposite party continuously pursuing the request of the complainant in respect of  his part withdrawal and that is why they sent Ex.A14 to the complainant before he  approaches  this forum.   No doubt the initial refusal of the complainant by the opposite party that, he is not eligible for the part withdrawal made  on  17.09.2012 and  whether such a refusal of the opposite party attracts  the definition of deficiency in service  has to be decided in this case.

7.       The  opposite party contented that as per Ex.A1 policy schedule on receipt of policy document within 15 days the complainant   can cancel the policy and he is  entitled to get the premium paid by him, whereas in this case the complainant has not chosen  to cancel the policy with the period of 15 days and therefore now he cannot get the relief of prayed in the complaint that to refund all the premiums paid by him deducting the amount withdrawn by him and in view of the same the opposite party have not committed any deficiency in service.     

In Ex.A1 policy schedule at page no. 4  typeset of  documents of complainant the condition in respect reconsidered the policy given as follows

You have the option  to cancel the policy. You would need to return the policy  document, policy schedule  and a premium receipt along with a letter clearly stating the “Terms and Conditions” with which you disagree, within 15 days of receipt of the policy document , marked to “Customer Services” at the above mentioned address.   

As per the above condition the complainant is entitled to cancel the policy and to get back the premium paid by him only within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy document by him. The policy document is dated 04.07.2007.  After 4 years only the complainant wanted to cancel the policy with the opposite party  which is the against the condition accepted by the  complainant in Ex.A1  policy schedule with conditions.   Therefore as per the policy the complainant is not entitled to cancel the policy and to get back the  premium paid by him.    Further the opposite party themselves found out the mistake committed by them in respect of partial payment to the complainant and they have also offered to rectify the same before the complainant approaches this forum and the said offer was rejected by the complainant, only infers that  the opposite party  caused some inconvenience to the complainant while processing the partial withdrawal to him and such inconvenience cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  Therefore it is held that the opposite party have not committed any deficiency in service  and accordingly this point is answered.   

8. POINT NO:2

          Since the opposite party  have not committed any deficiency in service  as arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in  the complaint and  the complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of March 2015.

          MEMBER-II                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENT:

- NIL -

             MEMBER-II                                                             PRESIDENT