BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Zubin Mauji s/o Gurnam Singh Mauji R/o # 1865, Sector 34D, Chandigarh, through his General Attorney Gurnam Singh Mauji s/o Chanan Singh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                              PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL           MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA                   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Maninder Singh, Proxy Counsel for

                        Sh. Rahul Chhatwal, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for

                        Sh. Arun Dogra, Counsel for OPs.    

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got Life Long Unit Link Templated policy having No.WTG 1432113 from OPs in the first week of January, 2007. The annual premium of the said policy was Rs.49,000/- and the complainant deposited three consecutive annual premium totaling to Rs.1,47,000/- The complainant alleged that due to financial constraints he could not continue the said policy and accordingly sent a written request to the OPs for surrender of the said policy and requested them to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.1,47,000/-  but the OPs did not act on his request. Ultimately a legal notice dated 7.5.2010 was got served upon the OPs. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs this complaint has been filed.

2.           In their joint reply OPs admitted the factual matrix of the complaint. The main contention of the OPs is that the full premiums amount is not payable as per Standard Terms & Conditions, as on surrender of the policy, only a surrender value is payable. The complainant was also issued the policy schedule and Key feature documents which clearly explain the charges applicable on the policy. The complainant himself signed a declaration, wherein, he declared that he has been given all the information regarding the policy which he has understood. Moreover the complainant had the right to review the policy and he could get cancelled the policy within 15 days. Hence he was fully ware with the terms and conditions of the case.  Rest of the allegations of the complainant has been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The factum of the Complainant having taken a Life Long Unit Linked Templated Plan [WTG] from the OPs, with a regular premium amount of Rs.49,000/-, with date of commencement as 15/01/2007 and date of last payment of premium as 15/01/2058, has all been well established.  The contention of the Complainant is that he deposited a total sum of Rs.1.47 lacs with the OPs for the three consecutive annual premium installments. Thereafter, due to some financial crunch, he did not deposit the premium and requested the OPs to refund the amount. As against it, OPs contended that the Policy in question was issued to the complainant after receiving a proposal form dated 04.01.2007. It was fairly conceded that the premiums were payable on an annual basis, till the Complainant attained the age of 85 years. The Complainant has paid only three premiums under the policy and as per the Standard Terms & Conditions, on surrender of the policy, only surrender value is payable and not the entire amount deposited by the policy holder. Moreover, the complainant could return the policy documents, if not satisfied, within 15 days, which he did not do. 

6.          A perusal of the proposal form Annexure-A, placed on record by the OPs would make it abundantly clear that the policy was having a regular premium of Rs.49,000/- and the said proposal form was duly signed by the Complainant himself, agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Policy. All this shows that the Complainant had gone through all the details of the policy and had signed the same by accepting the terms and conditions thereof. The OPs placed their sole reliance on “Right to Reconsider” clause, a perusal of which makes it clear that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the Policy, he could have used the said clause to cancel the same.

7.           The Complainant did not opt to withdraw the amount within a period of fifteen days after the receipt of the Policy documents. When the Complainant had received the Policy, it was necessary for him to go through the same. The Complainant did not like to discontinue the Policy, nor asked for the refund of the premium paid by him. Now, he cannot be heard saying that he was not aware about the features of the policy. The Complainant, however, has the right to surrender the Policy in accordance with the terms and conditions and the amount, if any, payable on surrender would be paid to him by the OPs. We, therefore, don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs because being Insurance Company, it had issued insurance policy as per the proposal form, which was duly signed by the complainant. In case, the complainant was not satisfied with the above said policy, then, he was at liberty to repudiate the same within 15 days i.e. during the right to reconsider period, but he had failed to do so. Hence, the prayer of the complainant that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1.47 lacs along with interest cannot be accepted, because the OPs have ably proved on record that on surrender of the Policy, surrender value is payable.

8.           In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.