Haryana

StateCommission

CC/73/2014

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No  : 73 of 2014

Date of Institution: 31.07.2014

Date of Decision : 18.10.2016

Sunil Kumar resident of H.No. 237, VPO Dhani Garan, Tehsil Barwala, Dhani Garan Hisar Haryana125121.

Complainant

 Versus

1.      AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office, AVIVA Tower, Sector Road, Opposite DLF Gold Course, Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon through its Director/Manager/Authorised Officer.

2.      AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor DSS-28 Sector-13-P, Near United Bank, Hisar Local Branch Office Hisar through its Director/Manager/Authorised Officer.

3.      Manoj Kumar, Adviser of AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor DSS-28 Sector-13-P, Near United Bank, Hisar Local Branch Office Hisar

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                            

Argued by:          Sh. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Complainant filed complaint with allegation that Uday Chand, his father, purchased Life Insurance Policy of AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite parties through Sh. Manoj Kumar-opposite party No.3 which commenced w.e.f. 10.01.2013 with assured sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and died on 01.07.2013. The maturity date of the policy was 22.01.2036.  After death of Uday Chand, the complainant being nominee lodged the claim. However, AVIVA Life Insurance Company Ltd. -opposite parties No.1 and 2 repudiated the claim.  Hence the complainant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.      Opposite parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by raising plea that life assured had applied for Aviva Life Shield Advantage on 10.01.2013 and deposited an initial amount of Rs.6418/-.  He has also mentioned his annual income as Rs.1,50,000/- from agriculture and also submitted copies of PAN Card and ITRs.  However, on investigation, it was found that he did not own any agricultural land or shop.  He was issued a NAREGA Card and was earning of Rs.214/- per day.  It was stated that he had filed fabricated ITRs and deliberately obtained PAN Card for creating evidence to purchase the policy.  It was also stated that the policy was purchased in violation of terms of the policy.  It was stated that the life assured had purchased six Life Insurance Policies with large amounts in quick succession of two months.  Details of the policies are given as under:-

Insurance Co.	Policy No.	Date of Commencement	Date of proposal	Sum assured
SBI Life (Policy in dispute)	56031906302	10.01.2013	07.01.2013	2,52,000/-
HDFC Life	15735244	15.01.2013	15.01.2013	1,52,849/-
AVIVA India	ALA3124537	22.01.2013	10.01.2013	30,00,000/-
TATA AIA Life	CO53867371	29.01.2013	29.01.2013	10,00,000/-
SBI life	09009335805	19.03.2013	01.03.2013	15,00,000/-
Total Insurance Cover				59,04,849/-

         

Thus, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.      Parties led evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

4.      The only argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that the life assured was holder of PAN card and filed Income Tax Returns therefore, life assured had sufficient income and since life assured was insured by opposite parties therefore, upon his death complainant was entitled to the assured amount being nominee.

5.      Opposite parties have placed on the file the copy of registration card of life assured issued under the Rashtriya Grameen Rojgar Gurantee Yojana, 2005 as Annexure-E and details of his employment in the year 2011 and 2012 with details of work.  The details of his working days and labour paid has also been given.  Opposite parties have placed on the  file the letter received from the investigator (Annexure-G) DA Associates, to show that Uday Chand life assured had purchased life insurance policies for more than Rs.59 lacs within a period of 2 months beginning 15.01.2013 to 29.03.2013.  When the life assured was only a casual labourer and had been registered under the Parivar Rojgar Card launched by Government under the Rashtriya Grameen Rojgar Guarantee Yojana, certainly the life assured has given the false information in the proposal form (Annexure-C-1) thereby giving his annual income at Rs.2,58,000/-.  Proposal form is on file as     Annexure-C-1 where in Column No. 1.15 he has mentioned himself as Agriculturist and in column No. 1.19 has given his income as 1,50,000/- and in column No. 8.1 regarding details of policies held, has scored of, thus certainly concealed information of existing policies and also furnished filed false information of income and mislead the Insurance Company.  

6.      It has been settled in LIC of India & Ors. versus Roshan Lal Gupta Volumer-II (2007) CPJ 194 (NC) by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi holding that where the life assured purchased high value policies in a quick succession without having any sufficient income was certainly misleading and the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.  In view of above, the complaint deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced 18.10.2016 DK

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President