BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.238 of 2016

                                                                   Date of Inst. 01.06.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision: 26.11.2019

Gurpal Kaur wife of Sh. Joga Singh, resident of VPO Sainiwal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, HO Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122 003, through its Managing Director.

2.       Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Branch office Sector 18, Ground Floor, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.

3.       Rashpal Singh Gill, Bank Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Nurmahal Branch, District Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Sh. Karnail Singh                    (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                  (Member)

Present:        None for the Complainant.

 Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.3 approached the complainant to purchase a policy from the OPs No.1 and 2 and also assured complainant that there are so many good benefits in the said policy and assured complainant that the amount paid under the policy will issue with the maturity of the amount increasing four time and as per the assurance and allurement of the OP, complainant has purchased a policy bearing No.SAG-2618952 of the year 2009 and complainant started paying the installment of the policy half yearly Rs.12,500/- for the term of five years and complainant has paid six installment to the OPs No.1 and 2 through the OP No.3 and after that the OP No.3 instructed complainant not to pay the further installment of the policy and due to this complainant stopped to pay remaining installment of the policy, because the terms and conditions of the policy has been changed and so complainant has no need to pay the further installment of the policy and the OP No.3 assured the complainant that the benefits of the policy will be the same.

2.                The time period of the policy of the complainant has been completed and now complainant is entitled all the maturity benefits of the policy. This was assured by the OP No.3. That after the complainant approached the OPs and requeted to release the maturity benefits of the said policy to the complainant and the OPs lingering on the metter on the one pretext or the other. Later on, the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.06.2015 upon the OPs. The OPs failed to fulfill the terms of the contract as such the deficiency in service and negligence has caused loss and injury to the  complainant and complainant has suffered mentally and physically harassment, which gave necessity to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to release the full maturity value of the policy and also directed to pay the damages, to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- due to deficiency in service and also pay Rs.50,000/- on mental tension and agony caused to the complainant due to the harassment of the OP and also to pay Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation charges to the complainant.

3.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 duly served and appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the insurance policy opted by the complainant Aviva Safe Guard, is investment oriented with Unit Linked Plan with maturity period of 20 years. The premiums paid are utilized for units at their current purchase price on the date of allocation. All benefits payments are made in encashing units in the policy account. As such the complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant to file the instant compliant qua OPs No.1 and 2 and even there is neither negligence nor deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. It is further alleged that the complainant has malafidely concealed the true facts rather made absolutely false allegations against the answering OP. The complainant was duly furnished with the Insurance Policy by the OP by courier at his given address and on option of free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy papers. The complainant has submitted his proposal form after understanding the terms and conditions. It has also been declared by complainant that regular premiums are required to be paid as per frequency and policy terms opted in the proposal form and the policy is liable to lapse in case the premiums are not paid within the stipulated time. The complainant started paying insurance premiums on due date with sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/- and premium paying term as 20 years and regular premium of Rs.12,500/- to be paid half yearly. The complainant was given free look period 15 days with option to return the policy, if he is not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the said policy. Complainant accepted the policy and started paying insurance premium to the OP and as per records, the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- towards initial and renewal premiums and thereafter, did not pay the insurance premium due to which the policy of the complainant was automatically terminated on 25.06.2013 as per terms and conditions of the policy and surrender value of the policy was sent to the complainant at his address by cheque. The policy was issued on the application of the complainant and he was explained the details of its said policy personally as well as product literature. The payment of regular premium was the sole responsibility of the Policy Holder/Complainant. The complainant has filed the instant complaint by misusing the process of law and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complaint is barred by time and deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the policy was purchased by the complainant, but after going through the terms and conditions and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate reply and also raised numerous preliminary objections and further controverted the story narrated in the complaint on merits and lastly submitted that the answering OP is impleaded in personal capacity, whereas there is no contract between the answering OP with the complainant and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.3 and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-14 and affidavit of Tejinder Pal Singh, Manager of PNB tendered as Ex.CB along with document Ex.C-15 and also tendered affidavit of Anshul Gupta, Asstt. Manager of PNB as Ex.CC alongwith document Ex.C-16 and then complainant closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Kaur, Asstt. Manager of OPs No.1 and 2 as Ex.OP1&2/A alongwith some documents Ex. OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/9 and then closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2 and then counsel for the OP No.3 further tendered into evidence affidavit of Rashpal Singh Gill as Ex.OP3/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.                In the complaint, the complainant herself alleged that she purchased insurance policy for the term of 5 years and she has to pay half yearly premium of Rs.12,500/- and complainant has paid only six installments and thereafter, the complainant stopped making the further installment of premium at the instance of OP No.3, who gave assurance to the complainant that further installment are not required to deposit and accordingly, the complainant did not deposit the further premium installment and thereafter, the complainant after maturity of the period i.e. five years approached to the OP for disbursement of maturity amount, but the OP refused to make the payment on the ground that the policy of the complainant has been already lapsed for want of further premium. Virtually, the OPs No.1 and 2 also took a similar plea that the complainant took an insurance policy for making the premium of Rs.12,500/- half yearly, but the complainant herself became defaulter for making further premium and this plea of the OP have been admitted by the complainant herself in the complaint, if so, then how we can assess any deficiency on the part of the OPs, rather there is virtually a default on the part of the complainant, who stopped making payment of further premium without any reason and rhyme and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and in support of these observations, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2016 (II) CPJ 585 (NC), titled as “Laxmi Bai Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1) (g), 21(b)- Insurance Act, 1938- Section 50- Insurance (Life)- Death of life assured- Policy lapsed-Non-payment of premium- Claim repudiated – Deficiency in service alleged- Compensation claimed- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal- Hence revision- Contention, no notice regarding lapsed status of policy issued- Not accepted- As per condition 12(b) (2) of policy, a policy holder is entitled to get policy revived within revival period of two years from due date of first unpaid regular premium subject to certain conditions laid down in Clause 34- A written application for revival has to be submitted along with all due unpaid premiums- No such application was submitted during life-time of deceased insured- Since option available to insured had been set-forth in policy itself, no need to issue notice under Section  50 of Insurance Act, 1938-Repudiated justified.”

On the same point, we further like to take an opportunity to refer another pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, cited in AIR (2008) 1310 SC, titled as “Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Jaya Chandel”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Insurance Act, 1938- Section 64-VB- Policy of life insurance- Non-payment of premium-Lapse of policy-Death of insured-Payment of premium with late fee after the death of deceased- Policy is revived only after approval of Corporation – Section 64-B not applicable on LIC – Impugned order for payment, set aside.”

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion as well as the matter decided by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Apex Court, the instant complaint having no merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

26.11.2019                              Member                          President