Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/255/2015

Arun Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Chandeep Singh

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/255/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	27/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02/03/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Arun Kumar Verma son of Shri Gopal Krishan, resident of H.No. 254, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, SCO 180-182, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Director.

 

[2]  The Managing Director, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, SCO 180-182, Madhya Marg, Sector   9-C, Chandigarh – 160017.

 

[3]  Nitin Kumar Rai, Advisor Code Y12200973, resident of H.No. 409, Dashmesh Colony, Zirakpur, Mohali [Deleted vide order dated 13.08.2015].

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SMT.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Chandeep Singh, Advocate.
For OP Nos. 1 and 2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Deleted.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Parties for purchasing one time premium plan vide Cheque No. 632937 dated 23.8.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank. After receiving the policy document (Aviva Family Income Builder), when the Complainant realized that the policy sold to him was for a term of 12 years instead of 1 year, he contacted the Customer Care of the Opposite Parties for necessary correction. After failing every effort to get the issue resolved, the Complainant finally approached the Opposite Parties by way of e-mails (Annexure C-2 colly). However, to the utter shock of the Complainant the Opposite Parties straightway rejected the claim of the Complainant and refused to change the term of the policy as well as refund of the amount. Being aggrieved with the arbitrary practice of the Opposite Parties the Complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, who dismissed the Complaint vide order Annexure C-3. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 26.5.2014 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-5 colly), but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, in view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 13.08.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have pleaded that based on the answers, statements, premium amount opted and declaration made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had issued the policy in question (Aviva Family Income Builder) with the terms and conditions governing the policy and a Welcome letter, which were admittedly received by the Complainant. However, the Complainant did not opt for free look cancellation after the receipt of policy, hence he cannot wriggle out of the terms & conditions of the same. It has been asserted that all the e-mails were duly replied by the Opposite Parties vide which the Complainant was made clear that there is no possibility of refund of premium or change in the policy. It has been urged that the order passed by the Ombudsman was as per law and correct. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.

 

6.      After considering the rival contentions, it is observed that the Complainant in his Complaint has levelled allegations of fraud and forgery in Para No.7 of the Complaint. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held  that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

 

7.      We are of the concerted view that the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since in the instant case, the disputed and complicated questions of fact and law are involved and for proving the allegations of the Complainant, thorough analysis of voluminous documents and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross examination is required, we feel that the case cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum, proceedings before which are summary in nature.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, we find that this Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the issues involved in the Complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the Complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court/ appropriate Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

9.      In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02^nd March, 2016                                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER