BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.211 of 2014

Date of Instt. 01.07.2014

Date of Decision :24.03.2015

Kanwaljit Singh son of Niranjan Singh R/o 6037, Zenith Avenue South Edina Minnesota, USA through special attorney Ravinder Singh son of Charan Singh R/o 617, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Registered Office 2nd Floor, Parkash Deep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

2. Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant is non resident Indian and unable to file the present complaint before this Forum. The complainant appointed special attorney Ravinder Singh to do all other acts on his behalf and filing the complaint and he is well conversant with the facts. In the month of April 2007, the advisor of the opposite party approached the complainant for investing the money in the life insurance policy having yearly premium of Rs.5 Lacs with the login period of three years and assured that it would give handsome returns. The complainant opted the same from opposite parties. The complainant has paid premium of Rs.5 Lacs regularly for three years but did not receive the policy documents having many times requested to the opposite parties but the opposite parties replied that they would provide the same shortly to the complainant but later on, the complainant found that the policy documents had been delivered to the third party who are unknown to the complainant. In the year 2010 after receiving the three premiums of Rs.5 Lacs each the opposite parties gave the duplicate documents to the complainant. After going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was shocked that the policy is life long and not for three years login period. The complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the opposite parties on March 2010 with the hope that he would get some fruitful results but after one month i.e April 2010 the complainant got a reply from the opposite parties to the effect that his complaint was under investigation and that he would get an early result from opposite parties. After two years, on June 2012 the complainant was shocked when he received a cheque of Rs.5,32,586/- against the payment of Rs.15 Lacs after almost 6 years and a letter from the opposite parties that his policy is auto foreclosed and without giving any interest or full payment. After two years on 29.6.2012 the complainant received a letter dated 23.6.2012 alongwith the cheque dated 26.6.2012 for Rs.5,32,286/- and the same was presented by the complainant in his bank account on 2.7.2014 and the same was encashed by the banker of opposite parties on 4.7.2012. The above said act of the opposite parties not only tantamount to unfair trade practice but also amounts to rendering of deficient, defective and negligent services towards the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.10 Lacs alongwith 9% interest for the period of 6 years. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding limitation, complainant having already filed complaint before ombudsman, it being abuse of process of law, maintainability etc. They further pleaded that complainant apart from purchasing the present policy further purchased three more policies for investment purpose. The complainant has purchased four policies i.e policy No.WLG 1567033, RPG 1815065, RPG 1808923 and APG 1833010 in June 2007, December 2007 and January 2008. All policies issued by opposite parties were duly delivered at the address given by the complainant in his proposal form and are Unit Linked Plans in which the investment risk of investment portfolio is borne by the complainant. The complainant submitted a proposal No.NUP10766495 for the issuance of the impugned policy No.WLG 1567033 Lifelong Unit Linked policy with an annual premium of Rs.5,00,000/- which was dispatched on 16.6.2007 vide Overnite Courier #539449320 and it was delivered at his address on 19.6.2007. It has been clearly mentioned on the proposal form that "the proposer should be satisfied with the details of the product(s) and must pay specific attentions to the key features brochure of the product(s)". The said policy commenced on 15.6.2007 with a sum assured of Rs.52,50,000/-. A free look period of 15 days were granted to the complainant but complainant never opted out of the policy nor reported for mis-selling after receiving the said policy, due to which the opposite parties provided necessary insurance cover to the complainant under the said policies. The complainant paid a total premium of Rs.15,00,000/- in the said policy No.WLG1567033. Since the complainant failed to pay the regular premium amount so the policy was terminated on 18.6.2012 and payment cheque for Rs.5,32,586/- was dispatched on 27.6.2012 through Blue Dart Courier vide POD No.43909959030 which was duly delivered on 29.6.2012. The said cheque has admittedly been encashed by the complainant. The company has been regularly sending various documents such as policy account statement premium notices, premium reminder to the complainant to keep him apprised about the status of the policy. The complainant raised his grievance with the opposite parties company which was duly replied by the company. It is an afterthought that complainant raised the issue to make unlawful gains and filed a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman at Chandigarh. A complaint on same facts has been filed by complainant which after proper hearing has been dismissed by the Insurance Ombudsman in case No.Aviva1977Gurgaon/Jalandhar/22/ 13 vide its Award dated 28.10.2013 where the Ombudsman observed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and auto foreclose has been completed as per terms and conditions of the policy. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP12 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. According to own version of the complainant, as pleaded in para 2 of the complaint, in the month of April 2007, the advisor of the opposite party approached him for investing the money in the life insurance policy having yearly premium of Rs5 Lacs with the login period of three years and assured that it would give handsome returns and he opted the same. So, admittedly the complainant has purchased the policy in question having a yearly premium of Rs.5 Lacs. Further according to the own version of the complainant, he paid premium for three years of Rs.5 Lacs each regularly. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant did not receive the policy documents and in the year 2010 after receiving three premium of Rs.5 Lacs each the opposite parties gave duplicate documents to him. Ex.C1 is copy of proposal form produced by the complainant himself. Ex.C2 is letter regarding auto foreclosure of the policy and sending a cheque of surrender value of the policy to the complainant. In this letter it is mentioned that since the surrender value of the policy is less then first year's premium thus in such a situation as per policy terms and conditions, they had to auto foreclose his policy. According to own version of the complainant, he has paid only three premium upto year 2010. So after 2010, he did not pay any premium. The complainant has not produced the policy document. In para 2 of the complaint, he has mentioned that in the year 2010 after receiving the three premiums of Rs.5 Lacs each the opposite parties gave the duplicate documents to him and after going through the terms and conditions of the policy, he was shocked that the policy is life long and not for three years login period. So atleast in the year 2010 when he received duplicate documents from the opposite parties insurance company, he came to know about the terms and conditions of the policy. He has himself pleaded that after going through the terms and conditions of the policy, he was shocked that the policy is life long and not for three years login period. It is not shown, if after receiving the duplicate document and coming to know about the terms and conditions of the policy, he ever applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period. Complainant has not produced any letter requesting the opposite party insurance company to cancel his policy within free look period on the ground that he has received the policy documents in the year 2010 and not earlier as alleged by the opposite parties. Since the complainant never applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period after receiving the policy documents, as such it means that he was agreeable to the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant has only produced copy of proposal form Ex.C1, letter intimating him regarding auto foreclosure of the policy and sending him cheque of Rs.5,32,586/- and copy of cheque Ex.C3. He has not produced any other document. The complainant remained silent for about two years even after receiving the duplicate documents and after coming to know about the terms and conditions of the policy. He received a cheque vide letter dated 26.6.2012 Ex.C2 and whereas the present complaint was filed on 30.6.2014 i.e after two years from the date of letter Ex.C2. In case, fraud has been committed with him then complainant would not have remained silent after receiving the policy documents in the year 2010 till filing of the present complaint on 30.6.2014. In case, he was dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy after receiving duplicate documents of the policy in the year 2010, he should have filed the complaint within two years but the present complaint was filed after about four years and as such it is also time barred. It is not case of the complainant that he got encashed the above said cheque dated 23.6.2012 under protest. Since the complainant got encashed the cheque without raising any protest, as such, he is estopped from challenging the auto foreclosure of the policy. The complainant has filed the present complaint after about two years of encashing the cheque. So remaining silent for almost two years after receiving the payment under the policy clearly tends to prove the story now set-up by the complainant is an after thought one and it is devoid of any merits.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

24.03.2015 Member Member President