Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/112/2014

Col. CM Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jun 2016

ORDER

                               DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint No: 112 of 2014                                                                                                                                           Date of Institution: 15.04.2014                                                                                                                                                           Date of Decision:  16.06.2016

Col (Retd) C.M.Sachdeva, 402, Sector 28, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Managing Director, Aviva Life Insurance  Co. India Ltd, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122 003, Haryana.

 

Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Prakash Deep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager.

                                                                                              ..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                  

Present:        Complainant in person

                     Ms. Charu Sachdev, Adv for the OPs

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that   the complainant C.M.Sachdeva who is father of Deepak Sachdeva who is policy holder of Aviva Life Insurance namely RSG Policy effective from 23.02.2007 has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on the ground that he has purchased an insurance policy namely “RSG” in the name of his name Deepak Sachdeva vide Policy No.1464494 and has paid 30 installments of Rs.2000/- per installment i.e. he had paid a total sum of Rs.60,000/-. The premium  installment of Rs.2,000/- each was to be paid to the OP through ECS facility from the account of Saroj, mother of the policy holder.  However, the said policy was closed by the OP despite the fact that no notice whatsoever was issued by the OP to the complainant informing about non receipt of the premium amount.  The complainant contacted the OPs and enquired about the policy and thereafter he came to know that on account of non receipt of the premium amount the policy in question has been cancelled by the opposite parties in an illegal manner and sent cheque No.072323 amounting to Rs.23,669/-. The complainant wrote several letters to the opposite parties to refund the entire amount with interest but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest and compensation.

2                 OPs in their joint written reply has alleged that complainant C.M.Sachdeva is neither the complainant u/s  2(c ) nor he is consumer u/s 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he is not the person who has invested in the policy. Moreover, the complainant is also not the policy holder. The complaint cannot be instituted in his name. The policy holder is Mr. Deepak Sachdeva . Shri C.M.Sachdeva is also not authorized by the complainant. Thus, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The OPs have admitted the receipt of 30 installments towards the premium in the name of Deepak Sachdeva and said Deepak Sachdeva had obtained the policy “Save Guard” on 23.02.2007 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was to be deposited at monthly premium. The complainant/policy holder’s bank account number was changed and the intimation of the same was neither given by the complainant nor by his  bank to the OP. When the debit request for due date 23.08.2009, the same was bounced and the bank provided the reason for bounce as “Account Description Not Tally”. The OP has discharged the duty by informing the complainant about the ECS bounce raised by the OP for due date 23.08.2009 by sending a letter at the correspondence address registered with the company. The letter was sent/delivered through courier overnite on 07.09.2009. The policy went into EL surrender as per policy terms and conditions. The opposite party has agreed to offer reinstatement of the policy vide letter dated 10.09.2013 as an exception and the OP has asked the policy holder to pay the arrears of premium till date but even then the life assured failed to deposit the premium and ultimately the policy automatically terminated and a sum of Rs.23,669/- was refunded in the account of Deepak Sachdeva. The opposite parties had written letters dated 25.10.2011, 05.12.2012  15.07.2013, 10.09.2013, and 07.03.2014. The opposite parties have further alleged that the policy had lapsed in Sept, 2011 and the present complaint has been filed on 15.04.2014 i.e. beyond the period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus, the complaint was barred by limitation and the same was liable to be dismissed.

3                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that he has obtained insurance policy from the OP namely “RSG Policy” in the name of his son Deepak Sachdeva vide policy No.1464494 which was effective from 23.02.2007 and he had deposited 30 installments i.e. Rs.2000/- each and thus, he had deposited a total sum of Rs.60,000/-. The premium was to be paid to the OP through ECS facility from the account of the mother of the policy holder Saroj Sachdeva. However, the said policy was cancelled by the OPs despite the fact that no notice whatsoever was issued by the OPs to the complainant informing about the non receipt of the premium amount. The complainant approached the OPs and enquired about the policy and he came to know that on account of non receipt of the premium the said policy has been cancelled in an illegal manner. The complainant wrote several letters to the opposite parties but in vain and has filed the present complaint by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5                 However, as per the contention of the OP, the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint as  C.M.Sachdeva is neither a complainant u/s 2(c) nor  he is a consumer u/s 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is not the policy holder and as such complainant has no locus standi to  file the present complaint as Deepak Sachdeva was the policy  holder. The opposite parties have admitted receipt of 30 installments towards the premium in the name of Deepak Sachdeva and said Deepak Sachdeva had also obtained Safe Guard policy on 23.02.2007 and  sum of Rs.2,000/- was to be deposited at monthly premium. As per the contention of the opposite party, when the premium amount was not received through ECS system then OP informed through courier overnite on 07.09.2009 and the said policy lapsed on account of non receipt of premium  and the OP had also agreed to reinstatement of the policy vide letter dated 10.09.2013  subject to payment of  pending arrears but even then life assured had failed to deposit the premium amount and ultimately said policy automatically terminated and a sum of Rs.23,699/- was refunded in the account of Deepak Sachdeva. OPs had also written letters dated 25.10.2011, 05.12.2012  15.07.2013, 10.09.2013, and 07.03.2014.OPs have also contended that the policy had lapsed in Sept, 2011 and the present complaint has been filed on 15.04.2014 and as such it was filed beyond the period of two years as prescribed u/s 24-A of Consumer Protection Act and thus, the complaint was barred by limitation.  In support of his contention learned counsel for the OP has relied upon State Bank of India Vs M/s B.S.Agricultural in Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2002 decided on 20.03.2009 by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. & Ano in Civil Appeal No.4962 of 2002 decided on 10.07.2009 by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that no doubt on account of allegedly non payment of premium amount through ECS system  the OP sent letter dated 07.09.2009 allegedly informing the policy holder  about non receipt of the premium through ECS allegedly on account of change of account number. OP treated the said policy as surrendered  and refunded the surrender value vide cheque dated 30.08.2011 in the sum of Rs.23,669/- but the said cheque was not received by the policy holder and thus, the said amount remained pending with the OPs and when the complainant agitated the matter time and again with the OPs the OP deposited the surrender value of Rs.23,699/- on 12.04.2014 in the account of Saroj Sachdeva, the mother of policy holder. It is pertinent to mention here that all the premium were paid from the account of mother of the policy holder through ECS system. Therefore, from the evidence and circumstances of the case it is evident that the surrender value of the policy was deposited in the account of mother of the policy holder on 12.04.2014. Therefore, the limitation period would start from the date of deposit of the surrender value in the account of the mother of the complainant. Had the OP not deposited the said surrender value in the account of mother of Deepak Sachdeva then certainly complaint could have been barred by limitation as cause of action had occurred in the year 2011 but since the surrender value has been deposited on 12.04.2014 therefore, in the present circumstances of the case the complaint cannot he said to have been barred by limitation in view of the provisions of the Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 rather the same is treated to be within the period of limitation.

7                 The argument on behalf of the OPs that the complainant is neither the consumer nor has got any locus standi to file the present complaint on behalf of Deepak Sachdeva, policy holder is not sustainable in the eye of law because the complainant has placed on file authority letter issued by Deepak Sachdeva in favour of his father  complainant. No doubt the format of the complaint should have been different so as to project that the complaint is being filed on behalf of policy holder Deepak Sachdeva but the authorized representative i.e. father who is complainant has drafted the complaint himself and appearing before this Forum and as such in our opinion such hypertechnical view cannot be taken to dismiss the complaint and as such the complainant who is father of the policy holder being authorized person has got locus standi to file the present complaint.

8                 The argument on behalf of the OP that on account of change of account number of the complainant the premium amount was not received after July, 2009 and thereafter the said policy lapsed for want of monthly premium amount  and to this effect several letters were issued and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case the OPs have tried to revive the said policy on deposit of balance premium amount and later fee charges but the complainant did not deposit the same and as such on account of non deposition of the premium amount the policy remained in lapsed condition and the surrender value on the date of lapsed condition to the tune of Rs.23,699/- has been refunded and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not sustainable in the eye of law because admittedly and evidently the entire monthly premium amount was received by the OP through ECS facility from the account of Saroj Sachdeva, mother of policy holder Deepak Sachdeva. It is again pertinent to mention here that Union Bank of India from where premium was deducted through ECS has issued a letter dated 25.07.2013 wherein it has been mentioned that on the date of non receiving the premium as alleged by the OP there was a sum of Rs.53,219/-  in the account of Saroj Sachdeva from where the premium was to be deducted through ECS command. The Union Bank of India  has also mentioned in the said letter that no instruction was given by the account holder to stop the ECS. Therefore, it is again pertinent to mention here that from the letter dated 25.07.2013 issued by Union Bank of India there was sufficient amount in the account of Saroj Sachdeva, mother of policy holder, from which the monthly premium was to be received through ECS by the Bank of the OP and as such  if the OP has not withdrawn the amount through ECS then no fault lies on the part of policy holder. The argument that there was  change in the account number and as such ECS command was not available is also not sustainable in the eye of law because if there was some addition of words in the account number from which the amount was to be withdrawn through ECS then the same could have been withdrawn as there was no change in the account  except addition of some digit. It is again pertinent to mention here that the OP has  deposited the amount of Rs.23,699/- in the account of Saroj Sachdeva in the same account and thus the correct account number was known to the OP. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the OP that premium amount could not be withdrawn through ECS system on account of change of account number and therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the bank of the OP has not withdrawn the premium amount from the account of Saroj Sachdeva despite the fact that there was sufficient amount in the account and the bank of the OP was under an obligation to withdraw the amount through ECS facility as the account holder was having sufficient amount and had not stopped ECS command for the payment of monthly premium towards the account of the policy holder Deepak Sachdeva. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the bank of OP was negligent in not withdrawing the premium amount which has resulted in the lapse of policy of the policy holder and as such a deficiency is caused on the part of the opposite party. The OP has paid a sum of Rs.23,669/- which is surrender value against the total deposited amount of Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, the payment of surrender value to the complainant by the OP is on account of compulsive circumstances created by the banker of the OP.

9                 Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the OPs are responsible for getting the policy lapsed and for causing mental harassment and financial loss to the policy holder and thus, we direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- for the mental agony, harassment, suffering as well as litigation expenses. The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The he parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

16.06.2016                                                                                                       President,

                                                                                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member