THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 448/2012
Dated this the 8th day of August 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
This petition is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.1986.
The petitioner filed this petition for getting an order directing the opposite parties to return the deposited amount of Rs.99,750/- with 18% interest from 30.06.2007 to 30.06.2012 along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the sufferings and also cost of the proceedings to her.
The crux of the case is that one of the Advisor of the opposite party Mr.Riyas approached the petitioner and persuaded her that if she deposit amount with the opposite party she will get attractive dividend. On believing his words she had deposited Rs.99,750/- with the opposite party. All the forms for the same were filled up by Sri.Riyas at their office and never read over to her. Only when she received the deposit receipt, she came to know that this was an insurance policy. When approached the Company branch office, the office personnel told that there is no need to pay the premium amounts, as stated in the policy certificate and it will automatically converted into term deposit with 18% interest for a period of 5 years along with insurance coverage and it will become matured on 30.06.2012. Believing these words she has not remit any amount thereafter. On maturity she went to the office of the opposite party and found that their business at Calicut was almost closed and a staff therein told her that she will not get any amount since she has not paid the full premiums for the said policy. It is stated by the petitioner that this is contrary to the representation made by the advisor Sri.Riyas and there was no communication from the opposite party in this regard. As per their terms and conditions in Article IX-VIII, the opposite party is bound to return the amount with 18% interest per annum. But till this date they did not pay the amount. This act’s of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. That caused much mental strain and financial loss. Hence this petition.
The opposite party filed version with the following contentions that the petitioner after fully knowing the specific features and other terms and conditions of the policy had applied for the AVIVA pension Plus-Regular Unit Linked policy having a premium paying terms of 5 years with an annual premium of Rs.99,750/-. On the basis of her proposal form, they have issued the policy certificate bearing No.RPU11583422 to the petitioner commencing from 30.06.2007. The policy documents were sent to the petitioner with a free look period of 15 days to reconsider her option. During this time the policy holder can cancel the policy if she disagrees with any of its terms and conditions by returning the policy document and can get back the paid amount. But the petitioner did not opt for cancellation of the policy and retained it as if she had opted the policy. It is further stated that all the features of the policy are mentioned in the brochure itself. In the proposal form it is written that “ in Unit Linked Plans, the investment risk in investment ……..is borne by the policy holder.”
The policy term was for 5 years and the petitioner had paid only the 1st year premium of Rs.99,750/- and thereafter has not paid the policy premiums. As per article’1’ of the terms and conditions of the policy, a grace period of 180 days is provided with the premium due date of 30.06.2007 and a further period of two years for re-instatement. However the petitioner did not re-instate the policy within the stipulated period and hence the said policy suffered yearly lapse and stood terminated without any value. Though they have intimated the petitioner through letters and reminders regarding the consequences of non-payment of the yearly premiums she did not respond to that. If the petitioner is having any doubt regarding the policy she can contact with the branch office through their toll free umber or other devices mentioned in the policy document. But the petitioner has not contacted them in any way for all these years. They have acted only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Exts.A1series, B1 to B3 and deposition of PW1.
The petitioner admits that believing the words of Sri.Riyas, the advisor of the opposite party she made the payment as a one time deposit. Only when she received the policy documents, she came to know that the amount paid was for the insurance policy. When contacted at the opposite party’s office and Sri.Riyas, they told that there is no need to pay the premium amount as stated in the policy document and it will automatically converted into term deposit with 18% interest for 5 years and so she has not made any payment thereafter.
But this statement is denied by the opposite parties as false. They argued that all the features and other terms and conditions of their policy was stated in the policy documents. They produced the copy of brochure, terms and conditions and also proposal form signed by the petitioner and those were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. In the face of the Ext.B1 brochure it is written that AVIVA life Insurance policy document. In the policy schedule produced along with the brochure Ext.B1, the policy number is shown as RPG 1583422 and product name as pension plus Regular Unit linked. Under the head ’Insurance Details’ It is written that policy commencement date 30.06.2007, Regular premium Rs.99,750/- premium frequency-Quarterly, policy term 5, premium payment term 5 and maturity date as 30.06.2012.
In Ext.B3 ie. the copy of the proposal form it is clearly stated that in ‘Unit linked ‘ plan the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policy holder’. The opposite party further argued that in Ext.B2(the standard terms and conditions) in article 1 Clause 1.4 it is stated that “If the policy is not re-instated within two years from the due date of the first unpaid installment of Regular premium, the policy will automatically terminate without any value at the date of the expiry of the reinstatement period and the surrender value in respect of Top Up Premium if any as per article 8 shall be paid to the policy holder at the expiry of the re-instatement period or the commencement of the fourth policy year, whichever is later”. So also in the policy schedule annexed with Ext.B1 it is stated that the policy holder can cancel the policy within 15 days of the free look period if the insured is not satisfied with any of the terms of the policy by returning the policy documents and can get back the amount paid.
The petitioner also produced these documents and were marked as Ext.A1 series. Ext.A1 series corresponds to Ext.B1 to B3. All the matters stated in Ext.B1 to B3 are also there in Ext.A1 series. The petitioner has no case that she has not received these documents in time. In Ext.A1(b) Proposal Form, the educational status of the petitioner is stated as 12th pass. This means the petitioner is a literate person.
An evaluation of the facts of the case and perusal of the documents produced it is found that all the features related with the said policy is clearly stated in Exts.A1 series documents received by the petitioner. As a literate person she can very well go through the documents and if she had any doubt, she can seek help from those who are having knowledge in this field and can cancel the policy within the free look period provided by opposite party company if she was dissatisfied with any of the terms in that policy. Here she has not exercised this option. So the averments of the petitioner that she was unaware of the terms of the policy and was under the belief that the investment was in a fixed deposit scheme as stated is not acceptable. The opposite party had rejected her claim as per the terms and conditions under article 1 clause 1.4 of Ext.B2(A1(a). So we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged. In view of the said findings we are of the opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result this petition is dismissed without cost.
Dated this the 8th day of August.2016.
Date of filing: 17/10/2012
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1(a). Copy of policy schedule
A1(b). Standard terms and condition
A1(c). Copy of proposal form
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Copy of policy schedule
B2. Standard terms and condition
B3. Copy of proposal form
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Beena (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
