Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/723/2015

Jasmer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Company Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal Adv.

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	723 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	17.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	10.04.2017

 

 

 

 

Jasmer Kaur daughter of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Gharhuan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, Punjab.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Aviva Life Insurance Company Private Limited, through its Director Registered Office at 2^nd Floor Prakashdeep Building 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110 001 India.

2]  Branch Head, Aviva Life Insurance Company Private Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant

 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant, a Senior Citizen and widow lady, being allured by the assurance of OP No.2 to get good returns, purchased Pension Plus Single Premium Unit Linked Policy of OPs in Sept., 2006 by making one time premium of Rs.5.00 lacs (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that at the time of purchase of said pension plan, the complainant was told that the valuation will be carried out on the date of maturity i.e. 4.9.2011 and she would get approximately a total sum of Rs.7.37 lacs.  It is also stated that the complainant was also told that if she would wait after the date of maturity for 2/3 years, she would get compound interest on the maturity amount.  It is averred that due to illiteracy of the complainant as well as her son being handicap with 70% disability in left arm and left leg (Ann.C-4), she could not correspond with the OPs.  However, as alleged, the complainant personally visited the OPs to get his policy amount, but the OPs did not pay anything even much after the maturity date. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the pension plan in question has been issued to the complainant as has been proposed by her.  It is stated that the policy in question was matured on 4.9.2011 with maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/- and thereafter, the OPs wrote letter to the complainant to submit the required documents as per Article 4 of the terms & conditions of the policy for payment of the maturity amount, but the complainant did not submit any documents.  It is denied that the complainant was entitled to get the amount of Rs.7,37,000/- as alleged.  It is submitted that the maturity benefit under the policy is to be released as per Article 4 of the Standard terms & conditions of the policy.  It is also submitted that the complaint is barred by time as the policy in question was taken in the year 2006 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015 i.e. after 9 years.     

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Curtailing the reiteration of the facts, it is a proven case of the complainant that under the “Pension Plus Single Premium Unit Linked Policy”, obtained by the complainant in the year 2005, the Opposite Parties have not paid even a single penny to her despite the policy in question got matured on 4.9.2011 with maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/-.  The factum about the maturity date i.e. on 4.9.2011 and maturity value of the policy in question with maturity value of Rs.6,78,916/-, is well admitted by the OPs in their written reply in Para No.6 (Reply on Merits). 

 

7]       The only plea taken by the OPs about non-payment of maturity value of the policy to the complainant is that they duly called upon the complainant to submit requisite documents by issuing letters dated 10.6.2013, 14.10.2013 and 7.3.2014 and as she failed to submit the requisite documents, she could not be paid the maturity amount.  There is no postal record regarding the issuance of above said letters in the name of the complainant, thus the above assertion is held to be hollow. 

 

8]       It is an indifferent attitude of the OPs, who instead of giving the due amount to the complainant (who is a widow and whose son is handicap) raised an objection regarding the complaint being barred by limitation period.  This objection of the OPs is out rightly rejected for the reason that the cause of action in the present complaint is a continuous one since the OPs are withholding the righteous claim of the complainant, which they not only acknowledged in their written reply, but also acknowledged in the so-called letters written to the complainant calling her to deposit the requisite documents for payment of maturity amount in the year 2013 i.e. two years after the maturity date.

 

9]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is writ large.  Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under :-

1. To pay the maturity amount of Rs.6,78,916/- to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of its maturity i.e. 4.9.2011 till the date of actual payment;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment suffered due to deficient services of the OP.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount as at sub-para [b] above from the date of filing this complaint, till its realization, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [a] & [c] above.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th April, 2017                                                    Sd/-

                  

                                                                             (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                 Sd/-                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                   (PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER