DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.347/21
Mr. Arjun Chadha
S/o Shri Sunil Chadha
Having its residential address at:
Q-6, Hauz Khas Enclave
Hauz Khas South Delhi
Delhi-110016. .…Complainant
VERSUS
M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Having its Branch/Division Office at
2 Floor, Prakashdeep Building 7,
Tolstoy Marg
Connaught Place
New Delhi-110001. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Prashant Sagar along with complainant in person.
Present: Adv. Charu Sachdeva for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:30.11.2021
Date of Order :23.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking cancellation of the policies and refund of premium in alternative Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @24% per annum; Rs.10,00,000/- as mental harassment and trauma and Rs.50,0008- as litigation cost. It is the case of the complainant that he invested in two policies Aviva Affluence and Aviva Wealth Builder on the basis of mis-representation by the employees of OP that the policies will give returns on the investment plans.
- It is stated by the complainant that he was assured to the complainant that he will get 7% tax free in the next 15 years if complainant paid only for two years and he will get maturity after 15 years but when the complainant calculated CAGR it was only 6.66%. It was further assured to the complainant that he could withdraw from the policies at any time after completion of two years as it is a very flexible product.
- Complainant raised a complaint with the OP customer care for cancellation of the policies and for refunding of the whole amount with interest and GST and also filed the complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman on 23.07.2021 which was disposed of on 27.07.2021 but in favour of the OP. Copy of the Ombudsman order is annexed as annexure-A.
- It is stated by the complainant that though he could not complain within one year of the first policy i.e. Aviva Affluence but for the second policy Aviva Wealth Builder, they have complained within one year of the said policy as the complainant is not able to pay the next premium due on both the policies on account of the mis-representation by the employees of OP.
- It is stated that complainant is not agreeable to continue the said policy as the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice with ill-intention and motive to grab the amount from the complainant. It is stated that complainant has made several requests to the OP for returning of the policy along with the premium but all in vain. It is stated that complainant has harassed physically and mentally and therefore seeks a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
- The complainant sent a legal notice to OP on 01.11.2021 to which a reply was sent by OP on 18.11.2021 rejecting all the allegations. Copy of the legal notice is annexure-B and reply of OP is annexure-C.
- In their reply, OP has stated that the complaint is false, malicious and is abuse of the process of law. It is stated that the complaint was also dismissed by the insurance Ombudsman vide award dated 27.07.2021. It is stated that the complainant has concealed material facts with the intention of misleading the Commission. It is further stated complaint is without any cause of action as OP is not guilty of any deficiency of service or mis-selling as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated that once the proposal form is signed, the contents of the same are verified to be understood, true and correct.
- It is stated by the OP that policy bearing No.10442604 was issued with commencement date as 31.08.2020, this policy was duly delivered on 16.09.2020 and policy No.10429937 was issued with commencement date 25.02.2020, this policy was duly delivered to the complainant on 19.03.2020. Copy of email vide which the policy bond for policy No.10442604 is annexed as annexure C.
- It is stated that in accordance with the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders’ interest) Regulations 2017 every policy bond sent by is accompanied by a right to reconsider option which clearly mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/ return the policy under the ‘Free look period’ provision. It is stated that the complainant has not raised any grievance regarding policy or its terms and conditions in that period thereby agreeing to the policy and the terms and conditions. OP places its reliance on the judgment Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. And Harish Kumar Chadha Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
- It is stated that OP has neither compelled the complainant to purchase the above mentioned policies nor has the company given any false promises to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to raise any concern at such belated stage.
- It is reiterated that the complainant was provided with complete information at the time of issuance of the policy and the key features of the policy were informed to him at the time of filing proposal form. All the policy documents were duly despatched in time. Complainant was also shown the benefit illustration form highlighting the policy term and premium payment term and the benefit chart of the policy and the complainant also e-verified the benefit illustration as well as the key features documents via OTP sent on his registered mobile number. Copy of benefit illustration form and key features is annexed as annexure E (colly).
- It is further stated that OP conducted pre-issuance verification call at the registered contact number of the complainant before issuing the policy to reconfirm that there was no miscommunication at the point of sale and to confirm the policy key features and to take customer’s consent before issuing the policy.
- It is stated that the policy was issued after analysing the financial capacity of the complainant who declared his annual income as Rs.18,00,000/-, bank deposits of Rs.32,00,000/-and total networth of Rs.2.07 Crores. As per the underwriting guidelines of OP, 10% of the net worth of the customer is also considered as an income for the purpose of issuing policy. Thus, basis the financial capacity of the customer subject policy was issued to the complainant.
- It is further stated that complainant had earlier subscribed for single premium ULIP policies in the year 2014 where he paid a single premium of Rs.16,00,000/- for both the policies. The complainant of his own free will and volition decided to partially withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- from both the policies and invested in a new ULIP policy with an annual premium of Rs.10,00,000/-. The copy of fund swap form submitted by the complainant is annexed as annexure H. It is stated that complainant has partially withdrawn from the policies and invested in new policies and surrendered the policies. In this regard, OP has placed on record annexure-I to M.
- It is further stated that on the basis of the proposal form and the declaration made there under OP has issued the policies. Complainant has paid single premium instalment in both the policies in dispute. Due to non-receipt of the regular premium instalment for the second policy year, complainant’s policy No.10429937 was discontinued and the fund value of the policy after deducting discontinued charges was transferred to the discontinued policy fund account, Copy of the letter intimating the customer about the complete withdrawal status of its policy dated 30.03.2021 is annexed as annexure-P and policy account statement for policy No.10429937 is annexed as annexure-Q.
- It is further stated that OP received several complaints from the complainants in the month of March 2021 which were duly replied by the OP. Copy of correspondence exchanged is annexure-R.
- It is denied by the OP that any assurance was given to the complainant regarding 7% guaranteed tax free return for next 15 years, if complainant pays only for two years and he will get maturity after 15 years. It is denied by the OP that there is no mis- representation by any employee of the OP or the complainant was ever misled by OP at the time of selling insurance products because of which the complainant has discontinued payment of premium.
- In his rejoinder, complainant has mostly denied the allegations made by the OP in its reply. It is stated that that the insurance ombudsman dismissed the complaint without considering the facts on merits. It is reiterated that OP has mis-represented to the complainant without giving any explanations of any terms and conditions and has lured the complainant for personal targets/ profits/incentives. It is stated that the declarations form has only one sided terms and conditions by the OP.
- It is stated that at the time of re-issuing the policy they just seek signatures which is a normal procedure for OP and misusing the documents later on. It is stated that OP did not ever explain the terms and conditions of the policy therefore question of objections being raised within one year or 15 days does not arise. It is stated that at the time of selling the insurance agents of OP show flowery pictures for meeting their targets and then move on a new customer to dupe.
- It is stated by the complainant that para 9 to 13 is a computer generated documents which self-filled by the OP along with false signatures. Complainants states that financial statement of complainant and the proposal form does not pertain to him and the OP is indulging in act of forgery by putting the signature of the complainant.
Both the complainant as well as OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits and the written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and have heard oral arguments. OP has placed on record the fund swap form addendum filled by the complainant. It has also been pointed out by the OP that the policy contains the terms that the benefits under the policy can only be provided once the premiums are regularly paid and only the guaranteed benefits would be provided which means that some benefits are variable and with returns based on future performance of the company. However, only the guaranteed benefits would be paid. In this regard, the order of Ombudsman also notes that the complainant had received the policy documents in time and also received and also received pre-issuance verification call wherein the key features and benefits were explained to the complainant.
It is seen from the documents on records that the complainant is not a novice in this field who had been investing in various policies. This Commission finds it difficult to believe the allegation that the complainant was duped by OP in purchasing the policies which he has purchased. Complainant has not been able to establish the allegations made against the OP. Complainant has made a half-hearted attempt in saying that the IT returns etc. are not his. The complainant is basing his claim on his calculation that CAGR would be only 4.66%.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
