Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/68

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sunil Agnihotri

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.68 of 2012

 

                                                   Date of Institution: 18.01.2012    

                                                   Date of Decision:  23.11.2015

 

Gurmail Singh S/o Jog Raj, r/o Village Nangal Bihala, tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, through power attorney of Gurvinder Pathania s/o Jog Raj, r/o village Nangal Bihala, tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

 

 

                                                                                             …Appellant/Complainant             

         Versus

 

1.      Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Head Office, Sector  Road, Opp. Golf Course DLF, Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon                    122003, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Ladhowali Road,     PUDA Complex, Jalandhar City-144001, through its Branch                     Manager.

 

3.      HDFC Bank Ltd., (Erstwhile Centurion Bank of Punjab), Civil   Lines, Rampa Towers Jalandhar, Punjab, through its Branch                      Manager.

 

4.      HDFC Bank Ltd., (Erstwhile Centruion Bank of Punjab), Sutehri   Road, near Govt, College, Hoshiarpur 146001 through its         Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                          ..Respondents /Opposite parties

                                                           

 

First Appeal against order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                                    : Sh.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate

          For the respondents no.1&2                   : Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate

          For the respondents no.3&4                   : Ex-parte.

         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 06.12.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hoshiarpur, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant Gurmail Singh has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs, on the averments that complainant was having account with OP No.3 for the last 10 years and Jatinder Singh, Relationship Manager of the then Centurion Bank of Punjab prevailed upon the complainant to buy four year policy of OP No.1 and 2 and the amount was to be returned after four years with considerable profit/interest. The complainant purchased a policy no.LLG1235961 and paid a premium of Rs.5,00,000/- on 16.06.2006. The complainant paid four installments each of Rs.5,00,000/- in that regard. OP No.1 to 3 directed the complainant to remain in contact with OP No.4, as complainant was resident of Hoshiarpur. The Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with HDFC and complainant approached the officials of OP No.3 & 4 to deliver the copy of the policy, but they did not supply the same intentionally.  The complainant approached OP no.1 and 2 to get back his amount but the OP no.1 and 2 delivered him a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-  in the month of July, 2009 and asked him to continue his policy till 16.06.2042 up to payment of the last payment. The complainant told OP No.2 that he was already 59 years old and how he could be expected to continue the policy till its date of maturity i.e. 2042. The complainant asked OP No.2 to return the whole amount of Rs.10,000/-, along with interest, as he was not interested to continue the policy. OP No.2 declined to return the remaining amount and to cancel the policy. The complainant requested, through his Chartered Accountant Navneet Aggarwal, to OP No.1 to 4 number of times to dissolve the policy and to return the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest, but to no effect.  The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OPs to return Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3.      Upon notice, OPs no.1 and 2  appeared and filed its joint written reply by raising  preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act and merits dismissal. The cause of action in this case arose in April 2006, when the policy was issued to the complainant, but complainant filed the complaint in March 2011, which is barred by time. The complaint is alleged to be false, frivolous, malicious and not maintainable. Any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs was vehemently denied. The complaint was alleged to be without any cause of action. It was further pleaded that complainant was under obligation to go through the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents and he had free look period of 15 days to opt out of the policy. The contract of insurance, thus, attained finality because complainant has not exercised the option of free look period within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The refund of the amount paid, as premium cannot be sought, which is beyond free look period of 15 days. The complainant is entitled to the surrender value under the said policies only. The complainant signed the proposal form on 11.04.2006, vide no.UP10042812 and complainant offered to pay sum of Rs.5 lac per annum on the declaration made and provided in the proposal form. The policy bearing no.LLG1235961 was issued to the complainant with date of commencement i.e. 16.06.2006, which was delivered to the complainant, vide Overnite Courier bearing no.506658438 with option of free look period within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The policy was due for premium on 11.04.2007, but complainant failed to deposit the premium in time. The policy was reinstated on receipt of the premium on 08.10.2007. The said policy was due for deposit of the premium for the term of 11.4.2008, but complainant failed to deposit the premium and status of the said policy was changed to paid up because complainant has not paid the premium even within the grace period. On 13.05.2010 the answering OPs received a request for partial surrender under the said policy from the complainant and OPs paid an amount of Rs.9 lacs, vide cheque no.352771, as per Article 17 of the terms and conditions of the policy. OPs received email dated 23.08.2010 from the complainant seeking refund of the premiums and OPs replied to complainant, vide email dated 25.08.2010, requesting the complainant to provide policy number of the policy issued to him, but complainant failed to respond the same. The complaint was also contested even on merits. It was further pleaded that complainant could only surrender the said policy under full surrender, as per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the said policy. The policy terms and conditions are drawn, as per the guidelines laid down by the IRDA. OPs no.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No.3 and 4 appeared and filed its joint written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was denied by the answering OPs that Mr.Jatinder Singh persuaded the complainant to buy the four years policy of OP no.1 and 2, as he is employee of HDFC Bank.  It was denied that transaction of the complainant was conducted by OP No.4. The answering OPs further pleaded that in the proposal form, which was supplied by OP no.1 and 2 in the Forum, the name of the advisor of complainant was mentioned as Kumar Gaurav. It was pleaded that complainant did not approach OPs no.3 and 4. It was denied that OP no.1 and 2 delivered him a cheque of Rs.10 lac in the month of July, 2009 and asked him to continue the policy. The OPs no.3 and 4 were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant regarding the alleged policy. OP No.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copy of document Ex.C-2. As against it OPs, tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarunjit Singh Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Mohit Adhikari Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Jatinder Singh Cluster Head, HDFC Bank Ex.OP-3 along with copies of documents Mark R-1 to Mark R-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Hoshiarpur, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 06.12.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Hoshiarpur, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also  gone through the record of the case.

7.      From perusal of affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 on the record, we find that the complainant took the insurance policy from OPs bearing no. LLG1235961 against the premium of Rs.5 lac on 16.06.2006 and four installments of Rs.5 lac each has to be paid since then. The standard terms and conditions of the policy are Mark R-3 on the record. The copy of the bank statement of complainant is Mark B is also on the record, vide which Rs.42,550/- was debited from the account of the complainant. Proposal form Mark-2 was filled up by the complainant on 11.4.06 at Jalandhar for taking the policy and it is recorded in it that it is lifelong insurance policy. The complainant filled up the proposal form and signed it in English on 11.04.2006. It cannot be said that complainant was not aware of this fact that it was Life Long Insurance Policy. The policy document was sent to the complainant and policy contained free look period, but complainant had not opted out of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy terms and conditions. In addition to that, the complainant applied for partial withdrawal amount under the plan in question. The complainant admitted receipt of Rs.9 lacs wrongly written as Rs.10 lac in para no.2 of the complaint in the month of July 2009. The complainant also received partial withdrawal amount applied at his own motion from OPs. The complainant is, thus, bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and he cannot escape out of the same. The Contract of Insurance is binding between the parties and has to be strictly construed, while deciding the cases. In the above-referred circumstances, the contention of the complainant is repelled that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and it was not supplied to him. The policy contained free look period of 15 days and complainant failed to exercise this option within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Mark 5 may also be referred to for partial withdrawal of Rs.9 lacs by the complainant. Since the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period, hence he could not be heard that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. The contention of the complainant is that policy was to complete in 2042 for a long period and it is not feasible that he could have taken the policy, as he is quite old. The contract of insurance is binding and policy documents were sent to the complainant through courier, vide receipt Mark-4. The District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The order of the District Forum under challenge in this case cannot said to be erroneous calling for any interference therein. We find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum Hoshiarpur dated 06.12.2011 under challenge in this case and we affirm it.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

9     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S.GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

November 23,  2015                                                           

(ravi)