Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/84

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Garg

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      84

Date of Institution: 1.07.2014

Date of Decision :   27.01.2015

 

 

Gurdeep Singh aged about 60 years, s/o Kartar Singh s/o Inder Singh, r/o village Golewala, Patti Baja, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                           ...Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance Corporation, Faridkot, Circular Road through its Authorized Signatory.

2. Aviva Life Insurance, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, BLF, Phase-5, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003.

                                                            .....Opposite Parties(Ops)

 

 Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P L Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

1                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Aviva Life Insurance Corporation, Faridkot etc/OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of redemption amount pertaining to Insurance Policy bearing no. AFP2862320 in the name of complainant alongwith all benefits accrued on it and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant was having account in Punjab and Sind Bank Branch at Golewala and Aviva Life Insurance has tie up with Punjab & Sind Bank and seeing the balance of account of complainant in the Bank, the agent of Ops met the complainant and requested him to get his life insured with Ops; that complainant being an illiterate person fell in the trap of agent of Ops and got himself insured with Ops and purchased policy bearing no. AFP2862320, which commenced on 15.01.2010 and the sum assured under the policy was Rs 5 lacs and annual premium was Rs 1 lac and complainant deposited three premiums worth Rs 1 lac each; that after some time, complainant approached Ops and made request to them that he needs money for his urgent domestic requirements, but Ops informed complainant that he is entitled to only Rs 2,10,000/- and not for Rs 3 lacs and interest thereon; that this act of Ops is totally wrong, illegal and unjust and is against the principles of natural justice; that Ops have invested the amount of complainant in share market and have issued him the Growth Fund Policy and complainant, who is an illiterate man was never informed about this aspect and was kept in dark as complainant never wanted to deposit his amount in share market, rather he obtained simple insurance policy; that complainant again requested Ops to consider his legal and lawful claim and to make the payment, but Ops kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and then, flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 10,000/- as litigation  expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.07.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking legal objections that contents of the present complaint are misconceived, misleading and after thought and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hand and has suppressed the material facts from the Forum; that intricate questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as the procedure followed under the Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and moreover, complainant is not the consumer of Ops and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is asserted that Punjab & Sind Bank has no relation with answering Ops and complainant himself approached the advisor of Ops and got entire information about all the plans of answering Ops in vernacular language and after having understood all the terms and conditions of all the plans, complainant opted to purchase Aviva New Freedom Life Plan and for this purpose, he duly filled proposal form no. NUP 13458486 on 8.01.2010; that the plan chosen by complainant is a unit linked life insurance policy and complainant opted term of plan as 10 years, premium paying term as 3years, annual premium Rs 1,00,000/-and sum assured was Rs 5 lacs and premium frequency was yearly and before signing the proposal form, complainant made declaration that he has fully understood the nature of policy and undergone through the contents of the same and after that policy bearing no.AFP2862320was issued to complainant and policy alongwith all documents and terms and conditions was sent to complainant by speed post, which was duly received by him and is in his possession; that as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant had an option to cancel the policy under the garb of free look period option, if the insured is not satisfied with the policy because as per Free Look Period Option, policy holder have the right to review the policy terms and conditions and cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents and if policyholder cancels his policy, the premium will be refunded after adjusting for adverse movement in units prices less charges incurred on account of      stamp duty and medical expenses but in the present case, complainant did not do so from which it is clearly established that complainant agreed for the same and moreover, it is specifically mentioned in terms and conditions of the policy that in Unit Linked Plans, the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policyholder and as it is a unit linked policy, therefore the actual payment  of benefits in this policy will vary, based on the actual performance of Investment Fund chosen by the policyholder and Investment Fund may increase or decrease as per the performance of the financial markets and names of Investment Funds and that of the policy do not in any way indicate the quality of the returns that can be expected from the Investment Funds and as complainant opted for Unit Linked Insurance Plan and his plan is entirely different from traditional Insurance Plans and is subject to different risk factors, but now, complainant has levelled false allegations against Ops just to get undue benefits from the Forum and to cause loss to the Ops; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Karan Chitkara Ex OP-1,2/1 and documents Ex OP-1,2/2 to OP-4  and then, closed the evidence.

7                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                   The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant had Saving Bank Account in Punjab & Sind Bank, Faridkot and Punjab & Sind Bank had a tie up with OPs. He further contended that Bank Manager passed balance information of complainant’s account to OP Insurance Company and thereupon, Insurance Company contacted the complainant through agent and explained about insurance policy and also assured the complainant that complainant would get good benefit from the Insurance Policy of Ops and then, complainant purchased the Insurance Policy. He further contended that the insured amount was Rs 5 lacs and Policy commenced in January 2010 and the annual premium of Insurance Policy was Rs 1 lac. He further contended that complainant deposited three instalments and as complainant was in need of money and had already completed three instalments therefore, he requested the OP Insurance Company to refund the deposited amount alongwith benefits but OP Insurance Company told the complainant that he is entitled to only Rs 2,10,000/-, which is quite illegal as complainant deposited Rs 3 lacs and was also entitled to bonus and interest. He further contended that complainant was never told about the type of insurance policy but agent of Ops only got his signatures on different forms as the complainant is illiterate person and terms and conditions of the Policy were also not explained to complainant and as such, complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy. He further contended that conduct of the Ops has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled to full deposited amount alongwith bonus and interest and is also entitled to litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

   9                                    The ld counsel for Ops contended that complainant was told about all the terms and conditions of the policy and after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant opted insurance policy and signed the proposal form and other documents for the issuance of insurance policy. He further contended that complainant opted for Unit Linked Policy and accordingly, policy was issued to complainant which has been duly proved on the file. He contended that as the insurance policy in question is a Unit Linked Policy, therefore, complaint in the Consumer Forum is not maintainable as complainant was to earn profit from the insurance policy. He referred case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala petitioner Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr. 2013 Vol 3 Consumer Protection Judgments Page 203 (NC). He contended that complaint filed by complainant is totally false and as such, is liable to be dismissed.

   10                          After going through the record of the case and the documents and evidence proved on file by the parties, this Forum does not find any force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant. Complainant admitted that he purchased insurance policy from Ops. Complainant has alleged that he was not told about the nature of insurance policy, but admitted that he signed the policy documents for issuance of insurance policy. Ops proved Proposal Form Ex OP-1, 2/2, which bears signatures and other details of complainant which show that complainant must have disclosed these personal details to the agent of OP Insurance Company. Thus, proposal form clearly shows that insurance plan opted by the complainant was a Unit Linked Plan. Complainant has also signed documents on 8.01.2009, which clearly show that plan is for the investment purpose and risk is to be borne by the Policy Holder. Otherwise also, Unit Linked Plans are of speculative nature as the money is to be invested in share market and in this eventuality, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. In the referred case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co.(Supra), complainant purchased a Unit Linked Plan and a dispute arose regarding the said policy in the Consumer Forum and it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that as policy has been taken for the investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain, complainant does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and complaint is not maintainable. In the case in hand also, Policy is a Unit Linked Plan, which is quite evident from the documents proved by the Ops on the file and as such, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and complaint in hand is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum.      

11                          In the light of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, due to peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 27.01.2015

                               Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta)