BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.329 of 2017

Date of Instt. 07.09.2017

Date of Decision: 13.05.2019

Jasbir Singh S/o Gurdyal Singh R/o Village Nawanpind, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance, SCO 18, Ground Floor, Ladowali Road, PUDA Complex, Rajinder Nagar, Jalandhar.

2. IndusInd Bank, Opp. S. T. Bus Stand, G. T. Road, Phagwara.

3. Aviva Life Insurance, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF, Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Shekhar Prabhakar, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3.

Sh. N. S. Kohli, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant having his bank account with the OP No.2. The complainant went to the bank i.e. OP No.2 for the purpose of obtaining the FDRs for which he paid Rs.3,00,000/- which was deducted by OP No.2 from the account of the complainant for the purpose and the bank manager asked the complainant to come to the bank after some days and received the documents of FDRs. Thereafter, the complainant went to the bank and the manager of OP No.2 handed over the documents to the complainant. The complainant was under the impression that the documents provided by the manager of the OP No.2 were FDRs. In the month of August, 2014, when the complainant went to bank i.e. OP No.2 and enquired about his FDRs status, he was told by the manager of the OP No.2 that the complainant has not obtained any FDRs from the bank. The complainant had shown the documents, which were provided to him by the manager of OP No.2, who told that the documents with the complainant are not FDRs, the same are insurance policies, issued by OPs No.1 and 3. The complainant went in shock after knowing the same. The fact remains he had never sought insurance policies. The said policies have been issued to the complainant in connivance with the OPs, which is otherwise criminal breach of trust and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the the OP No.2 many times for seeking his amount back, but to no avail. Even the complainant made several representations to the OPs and requested to OP No.2 to return his amount back, but all in vain and accordingly, the complainant served a legal notice to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, the act and conduct of the OPs is tantamount to deficient in service, which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, the amount deposited by the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassing the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 3 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to try, adjudicate and decide the present complaint, because the policies were purchased at Phagwara, District Kapurthala and the premium was paid at Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The policies were issued at Gurgaon, now Gurugram (Haryana). The office of OP at Jalandhar is nothing to do with the said policies of the complainant and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant himself opted three policies namely Aviva New Pension Elite Policy No.APN2914886, Aviva New Safe Guard Policy No.SGA2915221 and Aviva New Life Saver Policy No.ALE3018034 and accordingly invested oriented with Unit Linked Plan. The premium paid are utilized for units at their current purchase price on the date of allocation. All benefit payments are made in encashing units in the policy account. It is further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable in as much as there is no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the OPs No.1 and 3 because there is no negligence nor deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs and further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum because the complainant himself opted the three policies, after understanding the terms and conditions of the said policies and has made declaration in the proposal that he has been explained the terms and conditions of policy in his own language. It has also been declared by complainant that regular premiums are required to be paid as per frequency and policy terms opted in the proposal form and the policy is liable to be lapsed in case the premiums are not paid within the stipulated time. The OPs on the basis of proposal of the complainant issued three separate policy documents to the complainant, which were duly received by the complainant and he has annexed them with his complaint. It has been admitted by the complainant that he has received the said policies within 15 days from the date of his proposals. The OPs gave him free look period of 15 days with option to reconsider his decision regarding purchase of said policies. The complainant did not opt out of the said policies within the free look period and agreed with the terms and conditions of the said policy. The payment of regular premium was the sole responsibility of the Policy Holder/Complainant, which he has utterly failed to comply and as the complainant failed to pay regular premium of his policies so as per terms and conditions of the policies they were automatically terminated. In all the policies in question, the complainant had paid only the initial premium and thereafter no premiums were paid and due to non payment of regular premiums, all the policies were terminated respectively on 31.08.2011, 29.04.2011 and 30.07.2013. The present complaint has been filed in order to misuse the process of law to make unlawful gains, as such the complainant is not entitled to any equitable relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct and admissions from filing the present complaint and even the complaint of the complainant is time barred, which deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the policies, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are controverted by denying the same and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. OP No.2 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.2, because the OP No.2 has to do nothing with the present dispute being raised by the complainant. The complainant out of his sweet free will purchased the life insurance policies after going through the application forms, offer documents, product brochure as provided by the Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. and has signed the application form for purchase of Insurance Policies. The entire process of applying for the Insurance Policy was done between the complainant and Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd. and the OP No.2 has only acted as intermediator for reference of complainant to Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The policy holder is at will to cancel the policies within the free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents, but in the present case, the complainant never opted to get cancel the policies within the free look period. Rather the policies were taken in the year 2011 and the complaint has been filed in 2017 much beyond the period of limitation with an intention to cover up the fact that the complainant failed to make the payment of the premium's of the policies. So, this being so the complaint against the answering OP is misconceived and not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum narrated in the complaint is replied in the manner that the purchase of the insurance policy is matter of record and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1&3/A and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 as well as case file very minutely.

8. First of all, we prefer to consider the contents of the complaint whether the same are based on the documentary evidence or not. For reference, the complainant alleged in Para No.3 of the complaint that the complainant went to OP No.2/IndusInd Bank for the purpose of obtaining the FDRs and accordingly, he paid Rs.3,00,000/-, which was deducted by the OP No.2 from the account of the complainant for issuing the FDR, but in the month of August, 2014 when the complainant went to the office of OP No.2/Bank, he became aware that the documents, so issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant are not FDRs rather it is insurance policies. In order to prove that the complainant has paid the amount, the complainant himself produced on the file copy of the bank account statement and photostat copy of the same is Ex.C-1. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant alleged in the complaint that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deducted from his account by the bank official of OP No.2, but the statement of account of the bank showed something else, wherein the entry made on 27.03.2010 showed that a cheque was given by the complainant paid to Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and cheque number is 911226 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, then on the same day entry i.e. 27.03.2010 again showed an other cheque was given by the complainant paid to Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd., having cheque No.911227 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, then an other amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- was respectively withdrawn from the account of the complainant and deposited in the account of the insurance company, as insurance premium, the said entries are dated 29.03.2010, 05.06.2010 respectively, the total amount paid by the complainant is not Rs.3,00,000/- rather it is Rs.2,60,000/-. The complainant was well aware at the time when he paid the said huge amount to the bank by way of cheque in the name of Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd., that he is purchasing insurance policy and accordingly, he got an insurance policy from the OP and remained silent upto August, 2014 for the best known reason, but we assessed that the complainant was virtually unable to deposit the yearly premium of the said insurance policies and ultimately, propounded a story as alleged in the complaint just to en-cash his amount paid by way of insurance premium, but the complainant is not entitled to get any relief for his own fault. It is bounded duty of the complainant to check the document whether it is FDR or Insurance, why he retained the documents for a period of about 4 years and this long period itself established that there is a hanky-panky on the part of the complainant.

9. It is not the case of the complainant that he is an illiterate and could not able to read the documents, if these facts have been impleaded by the complainant in the complaint, then the situation may be different and if the complainant received the document in the year 2010 i.e. after few days, after depositing of the amount, then the complainant was having free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the insurance policies, but the said 15 days period was not utilized by the complainant within time bond period and ultimately, the insurance policies of the complainant were terminated by the OPs for want of further premium in the year 2011 as well as two insurance policies were terminated in the year 2013 and thereafter, a cause of action accrued to the complainant at the time when insurance policies were terminated by the OPs No.1 and 3 i.e. in the month of April, 2011, then in the month of March, 2013 and then again in the month of July, 2013 and if we reckoned the period of two years there-from, then the complainant has to file a complaint upto 31.07.2015, but the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 07.09.2017, which is virtually beyond the period of limitation.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, we do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

13.05.2019 Member President