Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/366

Kewal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Garg

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.366 of 2011

                                                Date of Institution:  25.02.2011.

                                                Date of Decision:          26.02.2015.

 

Kewal Singh son of Sh. Malkit Singh, resident of Shere Punjab Nagar, Duareana Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant

Versus

 

1.      Aviva Life Insurance Branch Office Near Bus Stand, Faridkot           through its Branch Manager.

2.      Aviva Life Insurance, 5th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon-       Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001 through its        Managing Director.

                                                           ….Respondents/opposite parties

             

Appeal against order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.

Quorum:-

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri H.S. Guram, Member.

Present:-

 

     For the appellant                   :     Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate

For respondents           :     Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                   The appellant Kewal Singh (the complainant in the complaint) has filed this appeal against the respondents herein (the opposite parties in the complaint), impugning order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Faridkot (in short, “the District Forum”), dismissing the complaint of the complainant now appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant.

2.           The complainant Kewal Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the pleadings that he and his wife Pushpinder Kaur had joint saving account no.3255 in Bank of Punjab branch office Kotkapura, which was subsequently renumbered as 06481000055609, when this bank was merged in HDFC Bank. That Ruchi, the employee of the Bank of Punjab, who was also the agent of the AVIVA Life Insurance, inveigled the complainant to purchase the insurance policy of AVIVA Life Insurance company. She further assured the complainant that he would have to pay minimum two installments and the insurance benefit of Rs.15,00,000/- would be given to the nominee in case any mis-happening occurred during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant took two policies with yearly installments of Rs.15,000/-, on the assurance of above agent Ruchi, one in the name of complainant and other in the name of his wife Pushpinder Kaur. The complainant paid first premium of Rs.15,000/- to the OPs, as first yearly installment on 26.05.2006 and policy commenced on 26.05.2006. The complainant took another policy on 31.03.2007 by paying the premium of Rs.50,000/- and afterwards, the premium was to be paid @ Rs.15,000/- as yearly installment. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.60,000/-, vide policy no.NLG1263720 by paying installments of premium, and Rs.80,000/-, vide policy no.LSP 1525854 and both these policies in the name of complainant. The complainant approached OP no.1 on 15.06.2010 and demanded back the policy amount along with interest thereon. The complainant was intimated that there was no such rule to pay back the policy amount with interest and if he wanted to receive the policy amount, he would have to pay the policy installments up to the year of 2051 for policy no.NLG1263720 and up to the year 2027 for policy no.LSP1525854. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs, praying that the OPs be directed to refund the premium amounts of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/- with interest from the date of deposit till realization and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment besides costs of litigation.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant on the preliminary objections that it is barred by time. That cause of action arose in May 2006 for policy bearing no.NLG1263720 and in March 2007 for policy bearing no.LSP1525854, when the complainant signed the proposal forms thereof. The complainant firstly made allegation of fraud in June 2010, much after the period of two years only. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, besides being false and frivolous and is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that under IRDA Regulation 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides a free look period of 15 days to review the policy terms and conditions and to request for its cancellation, if dissatisfied therewith. That complicated facts and law are involved in this case, which cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the Consumer Fora. It was further pleaded by the OPs that after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the policy on the basis of the key feature document, Kewal Singh complainant, who is a teacher in a Government Senior Secondary Public School Kotkapura filled up a proposal form bearing no.NU10362376 dated 17.05.2006 for a "life long plan", wherein Mrs. Pushpinder Kaur has been made the nominee. That on the basis of declaration and information, supplied by complainant in the proposal form, the policy bearing no.NLG1263720 was issued to complainant with commencement date 26.05.2006. The courier receipt and acknowledgement signed by the complainant are Annexure OP-3, Annexure OP-4 and Annexure OP-5. The copies of key feature document along with proposal form are Annexure OP-6 and Annexure OP-7. The OPs reduced the premium amount to Rs.15,000/- per annum, on receipt of request from complainant and intimated him, vide letter dated 28.03.2008. The complaint was contested even on merits and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit
   Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Malhotra Ex.R-1 along with documents Ex.R-2 to R-14 and thereafter the District Forum closed the evidence of OPs by order, as OPs did not tender the remaining evidence, despite giving sufficient opportunities. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Faridkot dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 09.12.2010, under challenge in this appeal. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the OPs committed deficiency in service for not refunding the amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/- paid by him in respect of above policies. It was further maintained by the appellant that he was persuaded to purchase the policy by the agent of OPs fraudulently by making him believe that only minimum two installments thereof would be paid, whereupon his nominee would be paid Rs.15,00,000/- in case of any mishap during the subsistence of the policy. The amount of Rs.15,000/- towards installment has been paid by the complainant and complainant demanded the return of the policies amount with interest on 15.06.2010 from the OPs.
6.           The insurance policy is a contract between the parties. The parties are bound by the contract of insurance. Ex.R-2 and R-3 are the policy documents on the record. The complainant is a teacher, as recorded in it. The deposit slip of Rs.50,000/- by means of cheque no.943000 against proposal/policy no.NUP10782222 is on the record dated 16.03.2007. Advisor declaration is Ex.R-5. The standard terms & conditions Ex.R-6 is on the record. The case of the parties is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, as embodied in it. Article 7 of Ex.R-6 lays down, if an installment of regular premium is not paid within the period of grace from its due date as defined in Article 4.1 and the due date is less than 24 months from the commencement date, then the insurance will be deemed to have immediately lapsed without value. If any, additional single premium has been paid, the surrender value of all units held in the unit account in respect of the additional single premium at the date, the insurance lapsed will be paid subject to Article 15.  Article 15 deals with surrender charges. The complainant has not continued the policy and withdrew there from by not paying the premium. The complainant cannot renege on this contract of insurance. The complainant committed default in making the payment of premium amount despite the fact that he is a teacher in the Government Senior Secondary School Kotkapura. He himself filled up the proposal form. The premium amount for the first year is Rs.50,000/-, as per policy schedule and it is Rs.15,000/- from second installment, vide Ex.C-5. The case of the complainant is not covered under the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, as contained in standard terms and conditions Ex.R-6. It is not believable that complainant, who is a teacher and imparting education to the pupils was misled by the representation of the agent of the OPs. The free look period option has not been exercised by the complainant for cancellation of the policy. Consequently, the order of the District Forum Faridkot, dismissing the complainant of the complainant is unassailable. The case of the complainant cannot be compared with the case of Rajinder Kumar, as the facts of the case are different. We find no illegality in the order of District Forum Faridkot calling for any interference therein, in this appeal.
7.           As a result of our above discussions, the appeal filed the complainant now appellant is hereby dismissed by leaving the appellant to have surrender value charges thereof of the policies in question, if so advised under the contract of insurance.
8.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.        The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                         (H.S. GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 26, 2015.                                                             

(MM)