Punjab

Sangrur

CC/437/2014

GOVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR BHALLA

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    437

                                                Instituted on:      04.08.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.02.2015

Gobinder Singh aged about 61 years son of Gurbax Singh, resident of Focal Point Road, near Dharam Kanda, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Head Office: AVIVA Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Bhalla, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gobinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained one policy of OP number 1 bearing number LSP1665430 through Bank of Punjab, Sangrur (which is now OP number 2) for Rs.1,12,500/- on 30.08.2007, as the complainant was maintaining his bank account with OP number 2. Further case of the complainant is that he paid all three instalments of the policy regularly to the tune of Rs.15,000/- each under the Life Saver Plus policy. The complainant paid all the three instalments to the OP from 2008 to 2010. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of September, 2012, the Op number 1 sent a cheque of Rs.22,213/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement towards the policy, as such the complainant approached the OPs for details, but nothing happened. The complainant has alleged that the he invested Rs.45,000/- with the Ops in three years, but the OP number 1 paid only an amount of Rs.22,213/-, which is said to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part  of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of policy till realisation apart from compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is misconceived, misleading and after though, that the complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. It is further stated that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got information about all the plans of the OP in vernacular language and opted to purchase ‘Aviva Life Saver Plus’ unit linked plan of the OPs on 21.8.2007 after filling the proposal form.  The complainant opted to pay Rs.15,000/- as premium with sum assured of Rs.1,12,500/- and the term of plan was 15 years and further opted type of fund as Unit Linked Fund in Growth Fund 100%. As such, the complainant was issued policy bearing number LSP1665430 on 30.8.2007.  It is further stated that if the policy holder cancels his policy, the premium will be refunded after adjusting for adverse movement in unit prices less charges incurred on account of stamp duty and medical expenses, but in the present case, the complainant did not do so.  In the present case, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, legal objections on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint are taken up. On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 2 for providing details of the policy.  It is stated that nothing was to be done on behalf of OP number 2 regarding the policy, as such, question of approaching the complainant to OP number 2 is denied.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of cheque and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1/2 copy of deposit slip, Ex.OP1/3 copy of advisory declaration, Ex.OP1/4 copy of cheque, Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/6 copies of ID proofs, Ex.OP1/7 copy of information reports (3 pages), Ex.OP1/8 copy of customer declaration, Ex.OP1/9 to Ex.OP1/10 copies of letters, Ex.OP1/11 copy of medical appointment, Ex.Op1/12 copy of policy schedule, Ex.Op1/13 copy of letter, Ex.OP1/14 copy of policy information, Ex.Op1/15 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP1/16 copy of detail, Ex.OP1/17 copy of policy statement, Ex.OP1/18 copy of policy detail and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents tendered by the parties, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by purchasing the policy in question and had paid Rs.45,000/- in three instalments i.e. of Rs.15,000/- each as admitted by the Op number 1. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant deposited the premium of three years i.e. for the years from 2008-2010.  But, the grievance of the complainant in the present case is that though he deposited the three instalments of Rs.15,000/- each with the OP number 1, but he never sought refund of the amount from OP number 1.  But, the Op number 1 at his own  has refunded to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,213 vide cheque number 5.9.2012, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3 in lieu of full and final settlement.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP number 1 has no right to surrender the policy in question nor there is any provision for automatically cancelling the policy of the complainant by paying him the less value as done in the present case.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently contended that even the Op number 1 has no option to switch the policy in another scheme.   In the present case, the OP has not produced any request/writing of the complainant whereby he requested OP number 1 to cancel the policy or to refund its value.  It is worth mentioning here that since the complainant had deposited Rs.45,000/- in three instalments of Rs.15,000/- each for the year from 2008 to 2010 and the Op number 1 paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,213/- only through the cheque dated 5.9.2012, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that how the amount of Rs.22,213/- paid to the complainant was calculated and how an amount of Rs.22,787/- was deducted from the total deposited amount of Rs.45,000/-. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.  Under these circumstances, we find that since the OP number 1 has not given any details on record, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.45,000/- as on 5.9.2012. 

 

8.             The learned counsel for OP number 1 has further contended that the courts and Tribunal cannot rewrite contracts and direct payment contrary to the terms of the contract that too to the defaulting party. To support such a contention the learned counsel for OP number 1 has cited a ruling of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Harichand Rai Chandan Lal etc. in case No. Appeal (Civil) 6277 of 2004, decided on 24.9.2014, wherein  it has been held that the terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted something in the same.  But, in the present case since the OP number 1 has not taken any consent/application of the complainant for cancellation of the policy, which is a must, we feel that it is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. the OP number 1 has at its own cancelled the policy and refunded the amount to the complainant. As such, we feel this citation is not at all helpful to the case of Op number 1.  

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.45,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from 5.9.2012 till realisation. However, it is made clear that OP number 1 is entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.22,213/- out of Rs.45,000/- if already paid to the complainant.   OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. 

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within  a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member