IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 257/14
Monday the 29th day of February,2016
Petitioner : Bijosh.K.Varghese,
S/o M.M. Varghese,
Kaduthattu veedu, Pampady PO,
Kottayam-686 502.
(Adv. Shyni Gopi & Hari Prabha)
Vs.
Opposite parties : Aviva Life Insurance,
Ashirwad Towers, Plot No.2 Old
No.182, 3rd floor, Kodampakkom High
Road,Chennai 600034.
2) Branch Manager,
Kottayam Aviva Life Insurance
Co.India ltd. 686 502.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 21/7/14 is as follows.
The complainant is the policy holder of the opposite party vide No. SCG 2075283 issued by the opposite party. According to the complainant he had taken the policy only on believing the representations made by the sales executive of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party that after 3 years, the policy amount can be withdrawn as double amount of the deposited amount and they will get interest. From 22-7-08 he had remitted the premium amount regularly till 16-8-2011 and the total remitted premium amount is Rs.1,62,500/-. In 2011 the complainant approached the opposite party for refund and he had surrender the policy. The opposite party issued a Cheque for Rs.1,03,931/- dated 21-10-13. According to the complainant he is entitled to get the remitted amount of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest for the 5 years and the said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties jointly filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite parties the policy availed by the complainant is investment linked, the premium for which is put in the share market for speculative gain and such policies does not fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The policy subscribed was a ULIP policy and as such there cannot be any guarantee as to the return available on the same. The performance of ULIP policies is completely based on market trends. The complainant had paid Rs. 1,62,500/- as premium and on 15-10-13 he had surrender the policy. The surrender settlement was arrived at on 18-10-13 and the entitled amount was paid by Cheque dated 21-10-13. And the same was received by the complainant. According to the opposite parties they had paid the policy amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions were clearly explained to the complainant at the time of availing the policy and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them. So opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A4 documents and the deposition of the complainant as PW1.
Point No1
The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had not refunded the agreed amount or the remitted amount. The opposite parties had refund Rs.1,03,031/- only. From Ext.A1 it can be seen that the date of the commencement of the policy is 22-7-08. From Ext.A2, policy account statement, it can be seen that complainant had remitted Rs.1,62,500/- as premium amount. From Ext.A3 it can be seen that Rs.1,03,031/- was refunded to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of the Cheque dated 21-10-13 for Rs.1,03,931/-. Admittedly the complainant had remitted Rs.1,62,500/- as three years premium. According to the opposite parties they had refunded the eligible amount, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the IRDA (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies)Regulation 2010, regulation 7, obligation of an insurer upon discontinuance of a policy is stated. As sub clause of Regulation 7, the charges levied on the discontinuance, as a present of one annual premium or fund value on the date of discontinuance and its limits are specified. After three years, the maximum discontinuance charge for the policy having annualized premium above 25,000/- is shown as lower of 3%(AP or FV), the maximum of Rs.4000/-. So opposite party is eligible for the deduction of Rs.4000/- only. In our view as per the above Regulation the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,58,500/- after deducting Rs.4000/- from the remitted amount of 1,62,500/- But opposite party had refunded Rs.1,03,931/- only. So the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.54,569/-. In our view the act of opposite parties in not refunding the amount entitled to the complainant as per IRDA norms, amounts to unfair trade practice. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- The opposite parties are ordered to refund Rs. 54,569/- the balance amount with 12% interest from 21-10-13, ie the Cheque date for the payment, till realization to the complainant.
- Since interest is allowed, no separate compensation is ordered.
- The opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as this litigation cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Photocopy of Aviva Policy Number SCG2075283
Ext.A2-Copy of Policy Account Statement SCG2075283 as on
14 October 2013
Ext.A3-Copy of Policy Surrender Request
Ext.A4-Copy of Payment details(Cheque)
PW1-Bijosh K.Varghese
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
