STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                     UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Mrs.Prabha Goyal wife of Sh.Pardeep Goyal resident of H.no.1228, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

                                                       .…Appellant

                           Vs.

1.    Aviva Life insurance, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, SCO No.180-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2.    Aviva Life insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office 2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001.

       2^nd Address;-

       Aviva Life insurance Co. Ltd., 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon (Haryana).

                                                       …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present: Sh.Pardeep Goyal, husband of the appellant.

            Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Respondents.

                                  ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 163 of 2011 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.           The facts, in brief are that, on the inducement of the agent of the OPs, the complainant took Life Long Unit linked Policy  (Annexure C-1). The complainant paid Rs.75000/- for 3 consecutive years i.e. Rs.25000/- per year, statement in respect whereof was issued by the OPs, which is Annexure-II. It was stated that after continuous three years investment, the complainant intended to withdraw the invested amount, but to her  utter surprise, she was informed by the OPs, that only Rs.29495/- would be refunded to her as rest of the amount had been deducted. It was further stated that, at the time of taking the policy, the complainant was told that, in case of lapse in depositing the premium amount, after paying for two consecutive years, the policy shall be considered as surrendered, and the value of the units shall be refunded to the investor.  It was further stated that since the OPs misappropriated the hard earned money of the complainant with dishonest intention, she got served a legal notice (Annexure -III) upon them for refund of the amount, but her claim was illegally repudiated. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.           When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

4.           In their written reply, it was stated by the OPs, that the complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy, which was evident from various documents, produced by her.   It was further stated that the complainant herself applied for switch over from one fund to the other, which was confirmed vide letter dated 24.1.2008. She was informed that cash value of the units was subject to surrender penalty, as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It was further stated that the complainant was also informed about the policy fund value,  from time to time, and as on 30.7.2009 the fund value was to the tune of Rs 30,855/-.  It was further stated that the complainant was also aware of the fact that the return value was dependant on stock market.  It was further stated that the complainant was entitled to surrender the policy, from 3rd year onwards, subject to deductions, as per the terms and conditions thereof.  It was further stated that the complainant, during the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy papers, had the right to reconsider or cancel the policy if she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions thereof but no such request was received from her.   It was further stated that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.           We have heard the husband of the appellant, the Counsel for the respondents, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.           The husband of the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint, as the complainant intended to withdraw the amount, which she had deposited with the OPs for three consecutive years i.e. Rs.25,000/- per year, but they were ready to refund  Rs.29,495/- only instead of Rs.75000/-. It was further contended that, on enquiry, the complainant was told that 50% of the units had been debited to her account of surrender penalty charges, which was as per the formula mentioned in Article 15 of the Policy Document.  It was further contended that when the complainant checked the policy documents, she could not find any formula. Moreover, at the time of taking the policy, the agent of the OPs, told her to withdraw the amount any time, after paying for two consecutive years or thereafter.  It was further contended that the OPs were deficient in service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.

10.          The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant was well aware of the policy and its terms and conditions. It was further submitted that the complainant herself applied for switch over from one fund to the other, which was confirmed vide letter dated 24.1.2008, wherein, it was informed that cash value of the units was subject to surrender penalty, as per the terms and conditions.  It was further submitted that the complainant was entitled to surrender the policy from 3rd year onwards, subject to deductions, as per the terms and conditions.  It was further submitted that the complainant, during the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, had the right to reconsider or cancel the policy, if she was not satisfied with the same, but no such request was received from her. It was further contended that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

11.          It is an admitted fact that, the complainant obtained Life Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy, where the returns were of variable nature, depending upon the market conditions. Moreover, Article 15 of the Standard Terms and Conditions Annexure-I, at page 12 of the District Forum file also makes it clear that the insured was entitled to the surrender value, as per the terms and conditions from the commencement of the third year of the policy provided she had paid the premium for two full policy years. The policy account statement (Annexure-2), which was issued to the complainant by the OPs, from time to time, indicated the current price of the unit as well as fund value. It means the complainant was well aware of the nature of the policy and its terms and conditions. It appears that after seeing the policy account statements, sent to her, from time to time, the complainant, was well aware of the downward trend, in the market, and, therefore, she opted to surrender the said policy.  The District Forum, after taking these facts into consideration, had concluded that there was no deficiency in service, on the part of OPs and, thus, rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, we do no find any illegality, in the order, passed by the District Forum.

12.          In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit, in the appeal, filed by the complainant. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal, with no order as to costs, and uphold  the order, passed by the District Forum.

13.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.          The file be consigned to the Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

17.10.2011                                                      sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                    PRESIDENT       

cmg

                                                                                         sd/-                                               [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                             MEMBER