Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/348

Kalam Bahadur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Monga

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      348

Date of Institution:  28.11.2016

Date of Decision :     8.01.2019

 

Kalam Bhadur s/o Dhan Bhadur r/o Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Sikhan Wala Road, Near Ramban, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Aviva Life Insurance, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon- (Haryana).
2. Branch Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Corporation, Opposite Balbir Avenue, Circular Road Faridkot.
3. Gagandeep Brar son of Gurdev Singh Brar, Opposite Police Line, New Harindra Nagar, Faridkot.                                      .....OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Varun Gupta, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2,

              OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,07,500/- deposited with Ops alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in year 2008 on persuasion by OP-3 who is agent of Insurance Company OP-1 and OP-2, complainant purchased the insurance policy from OPs. OPs assured complainant that policy would give 100% growth and it would also cover the risk to his life to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/-. As per policy, every month complainant was to deposit Rs.2500/-regularly for three years and on completion of 5 years, he was entitled for refund of his money alongwith bonus and other benefits and its interest would have been more than the interest given by banks and it would also cover risk to life. Officials of OP-2 and 3 took signatures of complainant on various blank proformas and in this way complainant paid his first instalment of premium worth Rs.2500/-on 30.06.2008 and thereafter, OP-3 used to collect premium from complainant every month upto June 2010 and despite repeated requests by complainant did not come thereafter to take premium. In December, 2011 OP-2 and 3 asked complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/-as arrears of premiums, which complainant paid vide cheque no.199854 dated 12.12.2011. OP-3 told complainant that now, complainant need not deposit any further premium and assured to refund his amount by 2013 alongwith benefits of growth of policy. In March, 2013 complainant approached OP-2 and 3 with request to refund his deposited amount alongwith benefits, but they persuaded him to deposit Rs.37,500/- and said that his money alongwith benefits would be refunded to him in December 2014. Complainant paid Rs.2500/-in cash and gave cheque no.199856 dated 25.03.2014 for amount of Rs.35,000/-. Vide letter dated 13.04.2013, OPs refunded Rs.37,500/- and mentioned in said letter that they received this amount in excess from complainant and assured that complainant would receive his money in December 2014, but since 2014, despite repeated requests by complainant, Ops have not refunded his amount and they have been putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. Issuance of legal notice dated 21.11.2016 also served no purpose. The action of Opposite Parties in not refunding the amount deposited by complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for directing Ops to refund the amount deposited with Ops alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                  The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.12.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                             OPs No. 1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed as complainant has tried to misguide and mislead the Hon’ble Forum and no cause of action arises against answering Ops. Present complaint is filed on the basis of false and frivolous allegations and it is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable in present form. Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. Moreover, answering OPs floated the insurance scheme as per instructions of IRDA and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that OPs issued the policy in question to complainant only on receipt of proposal form duly signed by complainant. OPs stressed mainly on the point that complainant purchased the policy in question after fully understanding all the terms and conditions related to policy and himself opted to pay Rs.2500/-as monthly premium for sum assured of Rs.2,25,000/- and when policy was despatched to him, complainant was given 15  days free look period to go through and check all the terms and conditions and during that free look period, complainant did not raise any objection. OPs averred that they have already refunded the amount received in excess from complainant as per terms and conditions of the service. It is denied that they have ever received any legal notice from complainant and asserted that they are ready to pay the surrender value of policy in question as per terms and conditions of policy. Ld counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that insured opted a Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan and this plan is entirely different from traditional Insurance Plans and is subject to different risk factors as insurance is subject matter of solicitation. Unit price of any Investment Fund may increase or decrease as per performance of financial markets and past performance of these funds offered by company do not indicate the future performance of these investment funds. It is averred that complainant paid regular renewal premium against the policy till June 2010 and thereafter he did not pay the requisite premium and therefore, his policy was lapsed due to non payment of requisite premium as per terms and conditions of the policy and complainant had option to get the same revived only after making payment of requisite premiums. Complainant paid the entire due premiums and got revived his policy. Moreover, complainant opted to pay the premium regularly for 15 years and therefore, he is bound to pay the premium regularly for 15 years. Answering OPs are ready to pay the surrender value of the policy in question as per terms and conditions of the policy. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous. It is further averred that complainant is entitled only to obtain surrender value as per terms and conditions of the policy and not the refund for amount deposited. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                   Notice was issued to OP-3 through Process Server, but despite service of summons, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-3 on date fixed. It seems that OP-3 is not interested in contesting the claim of complainant, therefore, vide order dated 17.01.2017, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.        

6                                        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-25 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OPs -1 and 2 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Arindam Mishra as Ex OP-1,2/1 and documents Ex OP-1,2/2 to 3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1 and 2.

8                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

  9                                                       Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on persuasion of agent of Insurance Company, complainant purchased the insurance policy from OPs. At the time of purchase, it was assured that policy would give 100% growth and it would also cover the risk to his life to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/- and as per policy, every month complainant was to deposit Rs.2500/-regularly for three years and on completion of 5 years, he was entitled for refund of his money alongwith bonus; other benefits and  interest which would have been more than the interest given by banks and it would also cover risk to life. OPs took signatures of complainant on various blank proformas and complainant paid his first premium worth Rs.2500/-on 30.06.2008 and thereafter, OP-3 used to collect premium from complainant every month upto June 2010 and despite repeated requests by complainant, he did not come thereafter to take premium. In December, 2011 OP-2 and 3 asked complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/-as arrears of premiums, which complainant paid vide cheque no.199854 dated 12.12.2011. OP-3 told complainant that now, complainant need not deposit any further premium and assured to refund his amount by 2013 alongwith benefits of growth of policy. In March, 2013 complainant approached OP-2 and 3 and requested for refund of his deposited amount alongwith benefits, but they persuaded him to deposit Rs.37,500/- and said that his money alongwith benefits would be refunded to him in December 2014. Complainant paid Rs.2500/-in cash and issued cheque dated 25.03.2014 for amount of Rs.35,000/-. Vide letter dated 13.04.2013, OPs refunded Rs.37,500/- and mentioned in said letter that they received this amount in excess from complainant and assured that complainant would receive his money in December 2014, but since 2014, despite repeated requests by complainant, Ops have not refunded his amount and they have been putting off the complainant. Legal notice dated 21.11.2016 also served no purpose. The act of OPs in not refunding the amount of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 25.

10                                                          To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued before the Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is asserted that instant                                             complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed as complainant has tried to misguide and mislead the Hon’ble Forum and no cause of action arises against them. It is filed on the basis of false and frivolous allegations and is an abuse of process of law as complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is argued that OPs floated the insurance scheme as per instructions of IRDA and there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the same. It is further argued that OPs issued the policy in question to complainant only on receipt of proposal form duly signed by him. OPs stressed mainly on the point that complainant purchased the policy in question after fully understanding all the terms and conditions and himself opted to pay Rs.2500/-as monthly premium for sum assured of Rs.2,25,000/- and when policy was despatched to him, he was given 15  days free look period to go through and check all the terms and conditions and even during that free look period, complainant did not raise any objection. OPs averred that they have already refunded the amount received in excess from complainant as per terms and conditions of the service. Receipt of legal notice from complainant is totally denied and it is asserted that they are ready to pay the surrender value of policy in question as per terms and conditions of policy. Ld counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that insured opted a Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan and this plan is entirely different from traditional Insurance Plans and is subject to different risk factors as insurance is subject matter of solicitation. Unit price of any Investment Fund may increase or decrease as per performance of financial markets and past performance of these funds offered by company do not indicate the future performance of these investment funds. It is averred that complainant paid regular renewal premium against the policy till June 2010 and thereafter he did not pay the requisite premium and therefore, his policy was lapsed due to non payment of requisite premium as per terms and conditions of the policy and complainant had option to get the same revived only after making payment of requisite premiums. Complainant paid the entire due premiums and got revived his policy. It is further averred that complainant opted to pay the premium regularly for 15 years and therefore, he is bound to pay the same for 15 years. However, OPs are ready to pay the surrender value of the policy in question as per terms and conditions of the policy. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are sternly denied and it is further averred that complainant is entitled only to obtain surrender value as per terms and conditions of the policy and not for the refund for amount deposited. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                     From the careful perusal of record and documents placed by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that on assurance by OPs that policy would give 100% growth and would also cover the risk to his life to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/-, complainant purchased the policy in question. He was to deposit Rs.2500/- per month regularly and on completion of 5 years, he was entitled for refund of his entire deposited money alongwith bonus and other benefits and this interest would have been more than the interest given by banks. Complainant paid first premium of Rs.2500/-on 30.06.2008 and thereafter, OP-3 used to collect premium from complainant every month upto June 2010, but despite repeated requests by complainant, he did not come thereafter to take premium. In December, 2011, OP-2 and 3 asked complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/-as arrears of premiums, which complainant paid vide cheque dated 12.12.2011. OP-3 assured to refund his amount by 2013 alongwith benefits of growth of policy. In March, 2013 complainant requested to refund his deposited amount alongwith benefits, but they persuaded him to deposit Rs.37,500/- and said that his money alongwith benefits would be refunded to him in December 2014. Complainant paid Rs.2500/-in cash and gave cheque dated 25.03.2014 for Rs.35,000/-. Vide letter dated 13.04.2013, OPs refunded Rs.37,500/- and mentioned therein that they received this amount in excess from complainant and assured that complainant would receive his money in December 2014, but since 2014, despite repeated requests by complainant, Ops have not refunded any amount and are delaying the matter, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that complainant purchased the policy in question after fully understanding all the terms and conditions and himself opted to pay  monthly premium for sum assured of Rs.2,25,000/- and when policy was despatched to him, he was given 15  days free look period to go through and check all the terms and conditions and during that free look period, complainant did not raise any objection. They have already refunded the amount received in excess from complainant as per terms and conditions of the service. It is asserted that they are ready to pay the surrender value of policy in question as per terms and conditions of policy. Ld counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that insured opted a Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan and this plan is entirely different from traditional Insurance Plans and is subject to different risk factors as insurance is subject matter of solicitation. Unit price of any Investment Fund may increase or decrease as per performance of financial markets and past performance of these funds offered by company do not indicate the future performance of these investment funds. Complainant paid regular renewal premium against the policy till June 2010 and thereafter he did not pay the premium and therefore, his policy was lapsed and complainant opted to get the same revived only after making payment of requisite premiums. Complainant paid the entire due premiums and got revived his policy. Moreover, he opted to pay the premium regularly for 15 years and therefore, he is bound to pay the premium regularly for 15 years. Answering OPs are ready to pay the surrender value of the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy.

12                                     To prove her case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-3, which proves the pleading of complainant that he paid premiums for the period from June 30, 2008 to June 2, 2010 regularly. Copy of cheque dated 12.12.2011 for Rs.50,000/- Ex C-2 and cheque dt25.03.2013 for Rs.35,000/- Ex C-4 also prove the grievance of complainant. Legal notice Ex C-5 shows that complainant was harassed by the act of OPs by not  refunding his deposited amount. Statement of account of complainant from State Bank of India for the period from 1.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 clearly stating the fact that amount in question debited from the account of complainant towards premiums of policy. Documents Ex C-7 to C-25 copy of vouchers issued by OPs in lieu of premiums paid by complainant also prove the entire grievance of complainant and through her affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings.

13                                  From the above discussion and evidence and documents placed on file by respective parties it is observed that complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. In the light of copy of cheques Ex C-2 and Ex C-4 and vouchers Ex C-7 to Ex C-25 there remains no doubt to the pleadings of complainant. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding issuance of policy and to the fact that complainant paid regular premiums towards the policy. It is also admitted by OPs in written statement that complainant got revived his insurance policy by making payment of Rs.50,000/- in December, 2011. There is no dispute that after December, 2011, the complainant further not deposited the premium regularly and on asking of OPs, in March, 2013, he deposited Rs.37,500/- with OPs as defaulting instalment of premium to regularize his policy which is duly accepted by OPs but this amount is refunded by the OPs in December, 2014 by saying it that they received this amount in excess from complainant whereas complainant got regularized his policy by depositing this amount and not paid anything in excess. Now, the version of the OPs is that the complainant did not deposit the premium regularly and his policy stands in lapsed condition and complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the policy or refund of premium paid by him except the surrender value of the policy. This plea of OPs does not seem genuine as they themselves refunded the amount of Rs.37,500/- to complainant which was deposited by him with them to regularize his policy by saying it that they received this amount in excess and unilaterally lapsed the policy of the complainant without giving any notice to him. These acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of premium paid by him to OPs for policy in question. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,07,500/-which they received from complainant as premium of his policy in question alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.01.2019

 

                   Member                            President

                                     (Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)