STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Zubin Mauji s/o Gurnam Singh Mauji r/o House No.1865, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh through its General Attorney Gurnam Singh Mauji s/o Chanan Singh.

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Versus

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

2]     Manger, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                                                        …. Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the Appellant.

                Sh.Arun Dogra, Advocate for the Respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal filed by the complainant (now appellant) against the order, dated 07.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 505 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.                    The facts, in brief are that the complainant got Life Long Unit Linked Templated policy, having No.WTG 1432113, from the Opposite Parties, in the first week of January, 2007.  It was stated that the annual premium of the said policy, was Rs.49,000/-. The complainant deposited three consecutive annual premiums totaling Rs.1,47,000/-  It was further stated that due to financial constraints, the complainant could not continue the said policy, and, accordingly, sent a written request to the Opposite Parties, for surrender of the same and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.1,47,000/-, but to no effect. Ultimately a legal notice dated 7.5.2010, was served upon the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties  were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged 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.

3.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the full amount of the premiums paid were not payable, as per the Standard Terms & Conditions, as on surrender of the policy, only the surrender value was payable. It was further stated that the complainant was also issued the policy schedule and key features alongwith the documents. It was further stated that the complainant himself signed the declaration, wherein, he declared that he was supplied all the information, regarding the policy, which he understood. It was further stated that the complainant had the right to review the policy and he could get it cancelled within 15 days if the terms and conditions were not acceptable to him. It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

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

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

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

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the District Forum, wrongly dismissed the complaint. on the ground that the appellant did not opt to cancel the policy within a period of 15 days, after the receipt of the same nor did ask for the refund of premium paid by him within that period.  He further submitted that as per clause 14 of the Policy, the appellant could surrender the policy after regular payment of premium for at least two full policy years and, as such, the appellant/complainant was entitled to the refund of the total amount of premiums paid by him.

9.                     The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties  submitted that the appellant was only entitled to the surrender value, as per Article 14 of the Insurance Policy. He further submitted that the respondents are ready to release the same to the appellant on submission of such request.

10.                 Admittedly, the Insurance Policy in question was issued to the appellant/complainant, in the first week of January, 2007. It was also admitted by the respondents/Opposite Parties, that the appellant had deposited Rs.1,47,000/- i.e. three annual premiums  of Rs.49000/- each for three consecutive years. Thereafter, the appellant vide Annexure A-5 at page 64 of the District Forum file, intimated the Opposite Parties, that due to personal reasons he was not able to pay any further premium and thus could not continue the same.   Article 14-Surrender Value of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy reads as under:

                “Article 14 Surrender Value:

                14.1 Subject to Article 17 with effect from the commencement of the fourth policy year the policy holder is entitled to receive a surrender value upon termination of the policy (other than the death of the insured) provided that all regular premium due have been paid for at least two full policy years”.

                Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy (Annexure P-2), the appellant  was not entitled to the refund of Rs.1,47,000/- i.e. the total premiums deposited by him. The appellant was only entitled to the surrender value of Insurance Policy as per said Article 14.  Since the Opposite Parties were ready to pay the surrender value as per Article 14 of the policy referred to above but the complainant did not approach them. The Opposite Parties were, thus, not at default. The complainant, therefore, did not suffer any mental agony and physical harassment on account of the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties.  The complainant is, thus, not entitled to any compensation.

11.                 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum is illegal and perverse, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant  is accepted with costs, and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The respondents/Opposite Parties  are directed as under:-

i)         To pay the surrender value to the appellant/complainant as per Article 14 of the Policy, relating to the Surrender Value of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, to the appellant/complainant.

ii)        To pay Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant as costs of litigation.

                This order be complied with, by the respondents/Opposite Parties,  within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the surrender value alongwith penal interest @ 12% P.A.. to the appellant/complainant, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 19.08.2010, till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

30.01.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                Sd/-

                                                                 [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg