Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/747/2014

Arvind Singh Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Lubana

26 May 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/747/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	14/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	26/05/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Arvind Singh Rana son of Sh.Madan Singh Rana, resident of House No.882/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh, through his Special Power of Attorney Mr. Madan Singh Rana son of Sh. Baljit Singh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1) Aviva Life Insurance, through its Manager & Authorized Signatory, 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon – Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon.

 

(2) Aviva Life Insurance, through its Manager & Authorized Signatory, SCO 180-182, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Davinder Lubana, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, allured by the projection of getting double the amount after six years, by the Agent of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant purchased one Policy bearing No. LLG1208222 on 07.03.2006 and deposited three installments vide Receipts Annexure C-2 to C-4 respectively. It has been alleged that after passing six years, when the Complainant, through is representative, tried to get the amount released, the same was not released, which caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to him. Aggrieved against the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 1.5.2012, and reminder dated 21.12.2012, but nothing has been done by the Opposite Parties to ventilate his grievance (Annex. C-5 to C-8). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that they had received proposal form no. UP10091804 from Centurian Bank of Punjab (now merged in HDFC Bank Ltd.) wherein the Complainant proposed for Life Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy. The premium of Rs.50,000/- was paid through DD No. 113822 dated 11.02.2006. The Complainant signed the proposal form after admitting the contents and after understanding the policy plan. After receiving the proposal form and documents submitted by the Complainant, the answering Opposite Parties issued insurance policy bearing No. LLG1208222. It has been asserted that in the Unit Linked Income Plan, there is no guarantee of benefits, so the question of paying the double after six years does not arise at all. It has been admitted that the Complainant paid three premium of Rs.50,000/- each (initial and renewal premium) and thereafter, did not pay any amount and therefore on 16.4.2009 the status of the policy was changed to paid up in accordance with Article 7.2 of the standard terms and conditions. On 3.2.2010 the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Parties for the maturity of his policy, upon which he was disclosed the fund value as Rs.73,921/-. It has been asserted that the Complainant lodged a Complaint and the same was duly replied vide letter dated 10.02.2010. Thereafter, he sent e-mail dated 15.2.2010, which was again replied on 17.2.2010 vide which the claim of the Complainant was denied. It has been submitted that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could opt for cancellation of his policy within free look period of 15 days, but despite receipt of the policy, he did not opt for the cancellation of policy, meaning thereby he accepted the terms & conditions of the policy and deposited two more premiums. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he paid three premiums of Rs.50,000/- each vide receipts Annexure C-2 to C-4 respectively, for one Life Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy purchased on 7.3.2006. As per the case of the Complainant, he was conveyed by the Opposite Parties that he will get the double amount after six years, but after passing six years the amount was not released, which caused him physical and mental harassment. Even the legal notice and one more reminder did not fructify.

 

8.     On the other hand, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant purchased a unit linked policy. It has been contended by the Opposite Parties in their written statement in para no.5 that they disclosed the fund value as Rs.73,921/- to the Complainant. But instead of responding to the offer of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the present Complaint. It has been further argued by the Opposite Parties that the proposal form is bearing the signatures of the Complainant and therefore the terms & conditions of the policy are binding upon him. Furthermore, the Policy Quotation Illustration Statement enclosed in the policy documents wherein policy returns are illustrated at assumed rates 6% and 10%, however, these returns are not guaranteed since the product is market linked.  

 

9.     After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the arguments of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties have considerable force and the same must prevail.

 

10.     Pertinently, all the unit linked policies are different from traditional insurance policies and are subject to different risk factors.  In the said policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder.

 

11.     A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as “Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.”, decided on 23.4.2013. In that case, the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

 

“The investment made by the petitioner/ complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/ complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

 

          Significantly, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference. The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in “Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited”, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 4.7.2014 and “Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh”, decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business.

12.      In view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings, the present complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
13.      For the reasons recorded above, the instant consumer complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.      However, before parting with the order, we should make it clear that the dismissal of the complaint shall not mean that this Forum has disbelieved the allegations of the complainant.  Unfortunately, in view of law laid down in the rulings mentioned above, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issues involved in this complaint before the appropriate Court/Forum. It is important to note that as per contentions of the Opposite Parties in Para 5 of their written statement, the Complainant is entitled to get fund value of Rs.73,921/-. Therefore, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to disburse the same to the Complainant as per their admission.   
15.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

26^th May, 2015                           

 Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER