BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mrs. Prabha Goyal W/o Sh. Pardeep Goyal R/o H. No. 1228, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant(s)….

                           V E R S U S

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

2]    Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Regd. Off. 2^nd floor, Prakashdeep Bldg., 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001.

       2^nd Address:

       Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)

                                  ……Opposite Party(s)……..

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Vijay Mangla, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Sandeep Suri, counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER 

       Concisely put, the case of the complainant is that on the inducement of the agent of OPs, the complainant took the policy  (Annexure C-1) and invested in the same . The complainant paid Rs.75000/- for 3 consecutive years i.e. Rs.25000/- per year, statement thereof issued by the OPs is at Annexure-2. But after continuous three years investment, the complainant intended to withdraw the invested amount but to the utter surprise of the complainant, it was informed by the OPs that only Rs.29495/- would be refunded to her as rest of the amount has been deducted. It has been averred that at the time of taking the policy the complainant was told that in case of lapse of depositing premium amount after paying two consecutive years, the policy shall be considered as surrendered and the value of the units shall be refunded to the investor. Since the OPs misappropriated the hard earned money of the complainant with dishonest intention, she got served a legal notice (Annexure -3) upon the OPs for refund of the amount but her well founded claim has erroneously been repudiated. Hence this complaint.

2.             In the written reply the OPs took preliminary objection that the present complainant does not fall within the ambit of deficiency of service rather the challenge is to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further objection taken by the OPs is that the complainant was well aware with the policy and its terms and returns which is evident from various documents produced by the complainant herself.  The OPs further pleaded that the complainant herself applied for switch over from one fund to the other, which was confirmed vide letter dated 24.1.2008 (Page 38 of the complaint), wherein it was informed that cash value of units are subject to surrender penalty as per the terms and conditions. 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/-. The OPs stated that the complainant took the policy after being fully satisfied.  The complainant was also aware with the fact that the return value was dependant on stock market.  The OPs submitted that the complainant was entitled to surrender the policy from 3^rd year onwards, subject to deductions as per the terms and conditions.  OPs further pleaded that the complainant ‘ in the free look in period, had the right to reconsider or cancel the policy within 15 days if she was not satisfied.  But no such request was received from her. At the time of issuance of policy also the complainant was given standard terms and conditions wherein it has clearly been mentioned that in case of surrender of policy prior to its maturity surrender value shall be deducted. Allegations of misappropriation of the funds have been vehemently denied by the OPs.  Denying all the other material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.     The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

5.     We have heard the Learned Counsel parties and have also perused the record. 

6.    The contention of the complainant in this case is, that she invested money with the OPs Company with the assurance of getting good return (Copy of policy Annexure C-1). She was told to make initial investment for at least two years, after which she can take refund of the investment with profit and good return.  But to her utter surprise, when she paid Rs.75,000/-  for three consecutive years and intended to withdraw the invested money, she was informed that only a sum of Rs.29495/- shall be refunded to her and rest of the amount has been deducted (Annexure 2-A). She contended that the OPs with dishonest intention and with ulterior motive have misappropriated the amount invested by her. The false  representation of the OPs amount to deficiency in service besides unfair trade practice.

7.    On the other hand, the OPs in his written statement categorically mentioned about having full knowledge to the complainant, of the terms and conditions of the said policy and she herself placed all the documents on file, which are provided by the OPs, in which it has been stated that returns of the policy depends on the stock market. Further more, the complainant had opted for life long policy upon which the declaration to that effect was also signed by her and no profits were assured as the returns dependant on the market conditions.  She was entitled to surrender the policy from 3 years onwards, subject to deduction as per terms and conditions. Thereby, the complainant is guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, because she never recorded her dissatisfaction with the OPs prior to the issuance of the legal notice. Hence the OPs have denied of having any misappropriation of the funds of the complainant or has made any illegal deduction.  

8.            A thorough perusal of the file, as well as record shows, that the complainant took Life Long Unit Linked Policy having No. NLG1227939 (Annexure -1).  In the illustration table attached with policy schedule, under the heading Benefits for Policy No. NLG1227939, it has been mentioned that,   Some benefits are guaranteed and some benefits are variable with returns based on future performance of your life Insurance Company. If your policy offers guaranteed returns then these will be clearly marked “guaranteed” in the illustration table of this page.  If your policy offers variable returns then the illustrations on this page will show two different rates of assumed future investment returns.  These assumed rates of return are not guaranteed and they are not the upper or lower limits of what your might get back as the value of your policy is dependent on a number of factors including future investment performance. .  Thus the returns to the complainant were of variable nature, depending upon market conditions. Moreover, Article 15 of the Standard terms and conditions makes it clear that surrender penalty deduction would be raised subject to terms and conditions. Furthermore, timely Policy Account Statements (Annexure-2) were issued to the complainant by the OPs which indicate the current price of unit as well as fund value. Therefore, the complainant was fully aware of the terms and condition of the policy and it seems that on the basis of timely policy account statement issued to him, he decided to surrender the policy. But he cannot claim the full amount considering the market condition/value of fund at the time of surrender, which is evident from the statements placed on file. 

9.            In view of the foregoing and documents placed on file by the complainant issued by the OPs speaks volume, from which, it is clearly made out that the complainant has full knowledge about the terms and conditions of the Life Long Unit Linked Policy, which she purchased from the OPs. So, there is no hide & seek, everything is crystal clear and also the documents placed on file by the complainant are self explanatory. Hence we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the complaint and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

10.    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.