STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Karnail Singh Thind, Resident of H.No.2571, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh

…Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.180-182, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh

....Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                The facts, in brief, are that, on the basis of the false promises and assurances of Agent of the Opposite Party, of getting good returns, the complainant purchased two Policies, bearing No.NPG1251607 and No.OPG1406053, one in his name, and the second, in the name of his wife Kirpal Kaur, by making payment of Rs.1 lac each, towards the premium. After the expiry of 4 Policy years, from the date of inception of the Policies, when the complainant contacted the Opposite Party, for getting his invested amount, alongwith profits, it paid a sum of Rs.1,26,701/-, to his wife Kirpal Kaur, as full & final settlement, in respect of the Policy, obtained in her name. However, nothing was paid to the complainant, in respect of the Policy, purchased by him (complainant), from the Opposite Party, on the ground, that he paid only one premium, for the said Policy, the term whereof was 5 years, with an annual premium of Rs.1 lac each, and, as such, the same lapsed, without any surrender value. A legal notice was served upon the Opposite Party, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the invested amount of Rs.1 lac, alongwith interest and profits; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment, as also damages; and pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant purchased two Policies bearing No.NPG1251607 and No.OPG1406053, one in his name and the second, in the name of his wife Kirpal Kaur, by making payment of Rs.1 lac each, towards the premium. It was stated that the Policy issued to the wife of the complainant, bearing No.OPG1406053, was a single premium Policy, which was surrendered on 16.6.2010, and the payment of Rs.1,26,701/-, as full and final settlement, was made on 26.6.2010, as per the terms and conditions of the same (Policy). It was further stated that the Policy obtained by the complainant, in his name, bearing No.NPG1251607, was a Pension Plus Plan. It was further stated that the term of the said Policy was five years, and the annual premium was Rs.1 lac. It was further stated that the complainant paid only one premium, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, in respect of the Policy, purchased by him, in the year 2006. It was further stated that, thereafter, he did not pay any premium, and, as such, in the year 2007, on account of non-payment of the second premium, the Policy lapsed, without acquiring any surrender value, and, as such, nothing was payable to him. It was further stated that there was neither any mis-representation nor any allurement held out, by the Agent of the Opposite Party, to the complainant, at the time of purchase of the Policy, in his name. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that misrepresentation was made to the complainant, by the agent of the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, he purchased the Policies, considering the same to be carrying only a single premium. He further submitted that no notice was received from the Opposite Party, by the complainant, that annual premium towards the Policy, in question, was due, and, as such, the question of payment of the same, by him, did not at all arise. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was not fair, in its dealings, at the time of selling the Policy, to the complainant. He further submitted that, on account of misrepresentation, made by the Agent of the Opposite Party, to the complainant, he was deprived of his hard earned money, and made to purchase a Policy, which he never intended. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was, thus, clearly deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in dismissing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.             The complainant admitted that he purchased the Policy bearing number NPG1251607, in his name, from the Opposite Party. Annexure OP-1, is a copy of the proposal form, in respect of the Policy, bearing number NU10090033, which was duly signed by the complainant, on 26.04.2006, at Chandigarh, when he purchased the Policy. Under the heading “Details of the plan applied for” at page 33 of the District Forum file, forming part of Annexure OP-1, the name of the plan was written as Pension Plus, the term of the plan was written as 5 years, the premium paying term was written as 5 years and the annual premium was written as Rs. 1 lac. This fact is duly corroborated from Annexure C-2, copy of the Policy Account Statement, submitted by the complainant himself. Alongwith the proposal form Annexure OP-2, key features of the Pension Plus Policy are attached. Under the heading “What happens if I am unable to pay my premiums”, it is mentioned as under:-

“ If you are unable to pay your premiums within the given grace period of 180 days, and,

-if at least two full years premiums have been paid, you have the option of making your policy paid-up.

-if all the premiums due in the first two years have not been paid, the policy will lapse without any value”.

10.             Annexure OP-4, is the document containing the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Policy. Article 1, relates to Regular Premium & Forfeiture Provisions. Clause (1)(2a) of the same reads as under:-

“Article 1 -  Regular Premium & Forfeiture Provisions

(1) It is a condition precedent to the Company`s liability to make payment under this Policy that there has been payment of Regular Premium by the Policy holder. If the Regular Premium is not paid in the manner or amount or at the time provided for, then the Company will allow a period of grace of 180 days from the date upon which the Regular Premium should have been paid within which the default shall be rectified.

(2) If an instalment of Regular Premium is not paid within the period of grace, then

(a) If the due date is less than 24 months from the Commencement Date, the Policy will be deemed to have immediately lapsed without value and no payment will be made unless any Additional Single Premium has been paid, in which case the Company will make payment in respect of Units attributable to that Additional Single Premium in accordance with Article 8”.

11.           It is evident, from the afore-extracted terms and conditions and the key features of Policy that, in case, the insured does not pay the premiums for 2 years,  consecutively, then the Policy will lapse, without any value and no payment shall be made to the insured. In the instant case, admittedly, only one annual premium was paid by the complainant. He did not pay the premium, for the second year, even during the grace period of 180 days, and, as such, the Policy did not stand reinstated. Even, he did not pay the remaining annual premiums. Under these circumstances, the Policy lapsed, without any value, and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to any amount, under the same (Policy). The Opposite Party was, thus, right in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

12.           Coming to the alleged misrepresentation, made by the Agent of the Opposite Party, at the time of purchase of the Policies, by the complainant, it may be stated here, that no worthwhile evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the same. Since, the proposal form Annexure OP-1, was signed by the complainant, it means that he is a well educated person. In case, the terms and conditions of the Policy were not acceptable to the complainant, it was required of him, to ask for the cancellation of the same, during the free-look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policy documents. The bald statement of the complainant, by way of affidavit, to the effect that he was misled by the Agent of the Opposite Party, or misrepresentation was made to him, that he will gain high profits, if he purchased the Policy, in dispute, cannot be believed at all. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the Policy. They cannot go beyond the same. Even this Commission cannot go beyond the same. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.           In paragraph number 8 of the complaint, the complainant, no doubt, stated that by selling the Policy, in dispute, to him, the Agent of the Opposite Party, played a fraud upon him, and, thus, he was liable to be prosecuted under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be stated here, that by merely making an allegation of fraud, against the Agent of the Opposite Party, the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, to entertain and decide the Consumer Complaint, is not ousted. Even otherwise, as stated above, no worthwhile evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that fraud was committed with him. Since, he purchased both the Policies, one in the name of his wife and the second, in his name, he could very well go through the terms and conditions contained, in the proposal form, as also in the Policy documents, when he received the same. The allegation of fraud, therefore, remains unsubstantiated. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice.

14.             No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

15.             In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

17.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

November 19, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg