BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 261 of 2010
Date of Institution : 7.10.2010
Date of Decision : 16.8.2016
- Chander Parkash, aged 45 years son of Sh.Hari Chand, r/o village Khairekan, tehsil and district Sirsa.
- Hans Raj, aged 60 years C/o Hari Chand, House No.130, village Khairekan, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
- Kaushalya Devi, aged 55 years c/o Hans Raj s/o Shri Hari Chand, r/o H.No.130, village Khairekan, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
….Complainants.
Versus
- Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office: Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122 003.
- Jasvinder Singh, Agent R.M. Agri. HDFC Bank, Branch Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ……………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …MEMBER.
Present: Sh.L.R.Dhot, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the complainant no.1-Chander Parkash, purchased policy
no.WLG 1371010 for Rs.5,00,000/- with a premium of Rs.50,000/- per year; complainant no.2- Hans Raj purchased the policy no. WLG1508961 for Rs.1,50,000/- with a premium of Rs.15,000/- and complainant no.3- Kaushalya Devi purchased policy no. WLG 1505041 for Rs.1,50,000/- with a premium of Rs.15,000/- from opposite party no.1. In this regard, the complainants deposited a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively towards premium for three years against the said respective policies. They have been intimated by opposite party no.1 regarding surrender of Auto foreclosure of said policies and has sent refund cheques of Rs.50,000/- 15,000/- and 15,000/- respectively, which is quite unjust, improper, illegal and arbitrary because as per the assurance of respondent no.2 they will have to deposit instalments for three years and then the policy will continue and will get the entire benefits of the policy, but they have been refunded less amount, which is also against law and facts, unjust, improper and illegal. The complainants approached and requested the opposite parties to refund their entire amount, but they did not pay any heed. Even legal notice was also sent, but no reply was filed to the same. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1, in its reply, has pleaded that the policy was issued on the basis of proposal form submitted by the complainant. The insurance contract was entered into between the parties upon the agreed terms and conditions as detailed in the standard Terms and conditions. The complainant was also issued the policy schedule and Key Feature documents, which were explained in detail to the complainant. The complainant had the option to review and seek refund of the premium if he disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy. The complaint is time barred because the policies were taken in the year 2006 and 2007, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 26.11.2010. The complainants duly paid two more renewal premiums under the policies and never disputed the features of the policies for more than 3 years. The complainants even revalidated their policies as they had lapsed. Further renewal notices, lapse notices, premium account statements and account summary were regularly sent to the complainants thereby keeping them well aware about the progress of the policies. Thereafter, as the fourth renewal premium was not received under the policies, the fund value of the policies went below the first year premium and the policies were auto foreclosed in accordance with Article 15.33.3.2 and auto foreclosed cheques for amount of Rs.50,000/-, 15,0000/- and 15,000/- respectively were sent to the complainants on 15th and 16th June, 2010. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in his reply pleaded that he is an employee of HDFC Bank Ltd and has no knowledge about the insurance business. He never approached the complainants posing himself as an agent of Op no.1 and appraised them about insurance schemes launched by Op no.1. The proposal forms and policies issued by Op no.1 show that Op no.2 has no concern with the business of OP no.1.
4. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainants have tendered in evidence Ex.C1-their own affidavits, Ex.C4 and Ex.C6-intimation regarding change in policy status, Ex.C5 and Ex.C7-payment advice, Ex.C8-legal notice, Ex.C9-acknowledgment; Ex.C10 and Ex.C11-postal receipts, whereas respondents have tendered Ex.R1- affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Cluster Head of OP no.1, Ex.R2 to Ex.R4-proposal form, Ex.R5 to Ex.R7-postal receipts, Ex.R8-terms and conditions and Ex.R9-agewise annual mortality charges
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. To determine the present complaint, only question to decide is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for their act of auto closure of the policies of the complainants? To answer this question, we have gone through the policy terms and conditions. Admittedly, fourth renewal premium was not paid by the policy holders and the Ops under the provisions of Article 15.3.3.2 of the policy auto closed the policies and refunded the amount at the market rate. It is also admitted that complainants had the option to get the policy cancelled within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, if they were not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, but the complainant never challenged the terms and conditions of the policies, rather paid two more renewal premiums after the deposit of initial premium which was paid at the time of obtaining the policies. As such, we are of the considered view that Ops rightly closed the policies and refunded the fund value of the policies at the time of closing the policies because the policies were depended on the market fluctuation and the investment risk was of the policy holders. In our view, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops and the action taken by the Ops is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policies. Hence, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:16.8.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
