Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/524/2014

Vishal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Aggarwal

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

[1]

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/524/2014
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	29/04/2015

 

Vishal Singh resident of House No.2763, Phase-VII Mohali Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Head Office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF-Phase V Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003 through its Managing Director.
2. Branch Head Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., SCO No.181-182, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

[2]

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/525/2014
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	29/04/2015

 

Bhupinder Kaur resident of House No.2763, Phase-VII Mohali Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Head Office, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF-Phase V Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003 through its Managing Director.
2. Branch Head Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., SCO No.181-182, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:		P.L.AHUJA		PRESIDENT
		MRS.SURJEET KAUR		MEMBER
ARGUED BY	:		Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
			Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two similar consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.         The facts are taken out from Consumer Complaint No.524 of 2014 titled as Vishal Singh Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Ltd. & another.
3.         Sh. Vishal Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that somewhere in the month of January 2006, OP-2 made a telephonic call to him apprising him about the salient features of their insurance plan.  It was categorically told by OP-2 that the policy was a single premium policy having lock in period of 3 years and that on commencement of fourth policy year, complainant would be entitled to maturity value of the policy. The complainant was assured that the money invested in the scheme would give handsome returns i.e. more than 33% interest per annum and the money would be fully safe.  Believing the projections made by the OPs to be true, the complainant signed the blank proposal form document and invested single premium of Rs.50,000/-. According to the complainant, he was in need of money and upon enquiry of the status of his policy/investment, it transpired that the amount invested by him in the scheme floated by the OPs instead of increasing the policy will be lapsed without value and further that in said case he would not be entitled to even a single penny. The complainant found that he had been completely ditched and cheated by the OPs and they insured him by misrepresentation.  On coming to know that the frequency of the policy was annual, OPs assured him that if he would further deposit Rs.50,000/-  for next two years after the first premium then he certainly would be entitled to the maturity value with rich dividends.  Under constrained circumstances and left with no other alternative, the complainant deposited the next two installments of Rs.50,000/- each. It has been contended by the complainant that thereafter a lot of correspondence was exchanged between the parties but despite that no action was taken by the OPs except silently refunding a total sum of Rs.79,089/- on 27.7.2010 vide cheque/draft against the total sum of Rs.1.5 lacs. The complainant did not encash the abovesaid cheque/draft and returned the same to OP-2.  In the second quarter of the year 2014, OP-2 again called the complainant and again issued him a fresh draft of Rs.79,089/- on 11.6.2014 instead of refunding the entire invested amount with dividends.  It has been alleged that thereafter the OPs admitted their guilt and assured the complainant that they would investigate the case with utmost priority but they have done nothing in the matter.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
4.         In their written statement, the OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is hopelessly time barred; that complainant is not a consumer; that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It has been averred that the Company had issued the policy based on the answers, statements, premium amount opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant. However, it has been denied that it was disclosed that the policy was a single premium policy having lock-in period of three years. It has also been denied that the complainant signed the blank proposal form. It has been contended that as per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document, but the complainant did not opt for the same meaning thereby that he had accepted the terms and conditions of the policy.  It has been contended that on the request of the complainant, the policy was surrendered as per terms and conditions and an amount of Rs.79,089/- was refunded to him vide letter dated 27.7.2010.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         In his rebuttal by way of affidavit, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         After appraising the entire evidence, written submissions of the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complaint merits dismissal.
8.         At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Life Long Policy No.NLG1211597 was purchased by the complainant after submitting the proposal form on 23.2.2006.  The first premium receipt of an amount of Rs.50,000/- was issued by the OPs on 28.2.2006. As per the case of the complainant, he also deposited the next two annual premiums of Rs.50,000/- and after a lot of correspondence, OPs silently refunded total amount of Rs.79,089/- on 27.7.2010 vide cheque/draft (Annexure     C-1).  The complainant was not satisfied with the amount of Rs.79,089/- and he did not encash the said cheque/draft.  Thus, the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 27.7.2010 and the present complaint filed on 7.8.2014, having been filed after more than two years of accrual of cause of action, is barred by limitation. According to the complainant, in the second quarter of the year 2014, OP-2 called him and again issued him a fresh draft of Rs.79,089/-on 11.6.2014 instead of refunding the entire amount. However, we feel that the mere fact that on the request of the complainant, a fresh draft of Rs.79,089/- was given on 11.6.2014 does not mean that any fresh cause of action arose to the complainant.  Otherwise also, it is well settled that mere exchange of correspondence or serving of legal notice by the complainant does not extend the period of limitation.  Consequently, the complaint is barred by limitation. 
9.         Even if it is assumed that the complaint filed by the complainant is within the period of limitation, still the complainant has no case on merits. The complainant has contended that OP-2 allured him to invest the money with Aviva Life Insurance Co. and further decoyed him and insisted him to invest the money in the scheme floated by OP-1.  A very rosy picture was created and the complainant was told that it was a single premium policy with lock in period of three years from the date of commencement.  It is also his case that OPs misled him in believing that his money will multiply over a period of time and believing in the projections made by the OPs, he signed on the blank proposal form document and invested his money. According to the complainant, he has been completely ditched and cheated by all the OPs who made false promises and assurances and further they insured him by misrepresentation. We are of the view that the allegations relating to fraud, misrepresentation and cheating require voluminous evidence, including production of documents and cross-examination of witnesses. Therefore, the allegations leveled by the complainant are beyond the purview of the summary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Consequently, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 
10.         Thirdly, the plea of the complainant that it was told to him that it was a single premium policy is also devoid of any force. A perusal of the copy of the proposal form itself shows that name of the plan was “Life Long” and it was annual premium policy of Rs.50,000/- per annum. The customer declaration duly signed by the complainant, who is an educated person, shows that the complainant was aware that regular premiums were required to be paid as per the frequency and policy term he had opted for in the proposal form and the policy would lapse in case premiums are not paid within the stipulated term. The customer declaration dated 23.2.2006, duly signed by the complainant, also shows that the returns and maturity value indicated in the illustration are only indicative and are not guaranteed. It does not in any way forecast the actual returns that the policy will earn on the investments in future nor do the rates of return indicate minimum or maximum limits that will accrue in his policy. In this view of the matter, the allegations of the complainant that he was assured by the OPs that the money invested in the scheme will give handsome returns i.e. more than 33% per annum on the amount invested by him cannot be accepted.
11.         Fourthly, as per Section 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders Interests) Regulations 2002, the insured could avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document.  The complainant did not opt for free look cancellation after the receipt of the policy meaning thereby he accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, if according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs refunded a total sum of Rs.79,089/- on 27.7.2010, no deficiency in service can be attributed to them.
12.         Fifthly, it is significant to note that as per the proposal form Annexure R-2, the type of fund was “Unit Linked Fund”.  The copy of the policy schedule also shows that the policy was 100% unit linked.  Even the name of the policy was “Life Long-Unit Linked”.  Hence, the money of the complainant was invested in the share market and it was a speculative investment which does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. The above view is fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 23.4.2013, followed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in Consumer Complaint No.96/2011 titled as Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. decided on 4.7.2014 and First Appeal No.407/2011 titled as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurjit Singh decided on 22.9.2014. In Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (supra) the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

“The investment made by the petitioner/ complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

Pertinently, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference.  The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited (supra) decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 4.7.2014 and Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh (supra) decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business.

13.         In regard to the allegations of the complainant that the OPs admitted their guilt and assured him that they would investigate the case with utmost priority but they have done nothing, it is pertinent that the OPs have denied this allegation in the written statement.  The complainant has not produced even a single document which could show that he pursued the matter with the OPs and the OPs assured that they would investigate the case for making further payment. Thus, we do not find any ground to infer that the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice.
14.         It has been contented by the learned counsel for the complainant that as per the newspaper clipping of 13.7.2010 Annexure C-3, about the IRDA regulations, OPs could put a maximum absolute cap of Rs.6,000/-, in case the policy was discontinued in the first year, and a cap of Rs.2,000/- in the 4^th year. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a judgment in Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2010 titled as Nirmal Singh Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited & Ors. decided on 10.1.2011 (Annexure C-4) by District Forum, Mohali and has argued that the learned District Forum, Mohali allowed the complaint of Nirmal Singh in similar circumstances. However, we feel that the said newspaper clipping has no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is important to note that the present policy was purchased by the complainant from the OPs in the year 2006.  Therefore, the regulations of the year 2010 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Similarly, if the learned District Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali has given some judgment in consumer complaint No.333 of 2010 decided on 10.1.2011 in favour of the consumer, the same is not binding on this Forum.
15.         For the reasons recorded above, we are unable to record a finding of indulgence in unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Resultantly, the consumer complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Needless to say the complainant shall be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.79,089/- for which a draft was issued by the OPs on 11.6.2014 to him, provided he has not encashed the same.

16.         The second consumer complaint has been filed by Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, complainant, mother of Sh. Vishal Singh.  The facts of this case are similar to the facts of the first complaint.  A perusal of the copy of the proposal form (Annexure R-2) of this case shows that the complainant gave a vernacular declaration that she was explained the contents and she had understood the same. She submitted a policy surrender request form Annexure R-3 on the basis of which a sum of Rs.17,045/- was refunded to her vide cheque/draft sent through letter dated 27.7.2010 Annexure C-1.
17.         For the reasons recorded above in Consumer Complaint No.524 of 2014 titled as Vishal Singh Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Ltd. & another, this complaint is also dismissed with the observations that the complainant would be entitled to get an amount of Rs.17,045/- for which a draft was issued by the OPs on 3.6.2014 to her, provided she has not encashed the same.
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/04/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President