Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/495/2016

Nasib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Dixit Dhiman Adv.

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	495 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	15.07.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	04.08.2017

 

 

 

 

Nasib Singh s/o Sh.Ajit Singh, Technician/Operator, O/o Water Works-1, Opposite Santoshi Mata Mandir, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT)

Second Address: H.No.#937, Kishangarh, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT)

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Aviva Life Insurance through its Manager, having registered Office at SCO No.45-47, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

2]  Harpinder Singh, Then Relationship Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab, Branch Mohalla Jatanwala, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT), now Branch Manager, Yes Bank, Branch Railway Road, New Nangal, Nangal, Punjab.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Dixit Dhiman, Counsel for complainant

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Sandeep  Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

 Sh.Sahil Khunger, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant was allured by Opposite Party No.2 for purchasing policy saying that the complainant has to make payment of Rs.10,000/- for regular period of 3 years and having sum assured of Rs.1.00 lakh and that the complainant can withdraw the amount deposited as per his need and convenience. As such, the complainant subscribed for the Policy bearing No.NLG1254341 – ‘Life Long Unit Linked’ and paid all three premiums of Rs.10,000/- each from 2006 to 2008 and after that he did not receive any information from Opposite Parties.  It is averred that the complainant always keep on asking the Opposite Party NO.2 about his insurance policy and other details and every time the Opposite Party No.2 told that it is going in a smooth manner & the details can be obtained from Opposite Party No.1, but on visiting Opposite Party No.1, it did not give any satisfactory reply.  It is submitted that when the complainant in Dec., 2013 visited the Opposite Parties to get the refund of his money on account of his daughter’s marriage, he was shocked to know from the Opposite Parties that his amount of Rs.30,000/- after 7 years has reduced to Rs.6000/-, whereas after 3 years of depositing the amount it was Rs.34,183/- as shown by Opposite Party No.1 in their balance sheet. The complainant agitated the matter with Opposite Party No.1 and requested to refund the amount, but to no effect.  The matter was also taken up before the Insurance Ombudsman, but complainant filed to get any sort of relief from it and then sent legal notice to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

         The OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the policy in question has been issued as proposed by the complainant.  It is also stated that the complainant has only paid three premiums of Rs.10,000/- each from 2006 to 2008 and thereafter did not paid the subsequent premiums.  It is further stated that the current status of the policy in question of the complainant is paid-up status.  It is submitted that in case the terms & conditions of the policy were not agreeable to the complainant, he could have returned the policy within 15 days of receipt of policy document, but he did not do so. It is  also submitted that the policy of the complainant was unit linked insurance policy and the performance of the fund depends upon the fund option chosen and that the fund performance is directly related to the performance of the market and daily fluctuations of NAV.  It is further submitted that the charges are also required to be deducted as per the terms. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has filed reply stating that he neither rendered any life insurance to the complainant nor insisted the complainant for subscribing to the insurance policy as alleged. It is also stated that answering Opposite Party neither visited the complainant nor made any assurance to him, as alleged. It is submitted that the insurance policy opted by the complainant has been issued by Opposite Party No.1 and the answering Opposite Party neither has any concern with the insurance policy nor is in any way related to Opposite Party No.1. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       This is an admitted fact that the complainant opted for Policy bearing No.NLG1254341  i.e. ‘Life Long Unit Linked’ and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- each consecutively for 3 years i.e. 2006, 2007 and 2008.  The evidence on record reflects that even after the passage of number of years from the date of receipt of last premium paid in the year 2008, the Opposite Party NO.1 has not paid even a single penny to the complainant under the above policy.  When the matter was agitated, the OPs come with the plea that since the complainant stopped paying further premiums under the policy subscribed by him, the said policy got lapsed and the complainant never approached the Opposite Party Company for reviving the same by paying the due premiums.  Further, it is claimed that since the complainant did not approach them within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order to get the policy cancelled if the terms & conditions of the same were not acceptable to the complainant, so the complainant cannot be allowed to raise any objection qua the terms & conditions of the policy being not acceptable to him at this stage. We are not impressed by the arguments/submission putforth by the OP No.1 as the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to act as per the terms & conditions of the policy in question in regards to the ‘non-payment of the premium amount’ agreed to be paid under the policy.

 

7]       In the present case, it was well in the notice of OP No.1 that the complainant stopped paying further premiums after paying the third premium in the year 2008, but it failed to work out/to calculate the fund value accrued in the said policy to be paid to the complainant in the case of non-payment of the further premiums i.e. in case of discontinuation of the policy.  No notice was ever served on the complainant to apprise him about the status of the policy in question.

 

8]       One astonishing fact which has been gathered from the record is that in the policy in question the sum assured provided is only to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh whereas the policy holder was under liability to pay the premium amount annually to the tune of Rs.10,000/- upto the Date of Final Installment i.e. till 11.5.2050 meaning thereby that the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.4,40,000/- against the sum assured of Rs.1.00 lakh.  This facts clearly proves that the policy in question is totally misconceived.

         From the discussion above, it can safely be concluded that the OP No.1 has not only failed to pay the due amount to the complainant, but also held guilty of issuing a misconceived policy to the complainant through its agent OP No.2.  Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party NO.1 is writ large, which further tantamount to unfair trade practice.  

 

9]       In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 with following directions:-

1. To refund Rs.30,000/-, being the premium  amount, to the complainant,;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service as well as for the unfair trade practice on the parts of Opposite Party NO.1.
3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.

 

        This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (a) & (c) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying litigation cost. 

 

10]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed.  

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

4^th August, 2017           

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER