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

========

Vijay Sandilya son of Late Sh.Piare Lal Sandaliya, resident of House No.16, Sector 16, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance, 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon-Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122 001.

2]     M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Branch Office: SCO 180-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant, being allured by the false promises made by the representatives of OP Company about high returns, paid Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a policy and signed the proposal form.  It is averred that inspite of depositing all three premiums against the policy, even then the policy document was not sent to him by the OPs.   On contacting OPs, they told him that this is a life insurance policy for which he has to pay regular premiums; else he would get the surrender value, after deducting of surrender charges.  Hence, complainant sent a letter dated 12.4.2010 to the OPs, which they replied saying that since he has not sent his request for cancellation of policy, within free look period, after receipt of policy document, therefore, the terms of the policy cannot be changed and he cannot be refunded full amount.  It is also averred that the complainant has not received the policy document.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]           The OPs in their reply pleaded that the complainant made the investment at his own free will, knowing fully the specification & details thereof. Besides this, he also gave declaration at the end of the proposal form that “he has been given all the information regarding the policy, which he has understood”. It is further pleaded that the complainant was duly sent the policy documents, setting out the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant was also provided with a policy schedule and standard terms & conditions, alongwith other policy documents.  Further, even after availing the policy, the complainant was provided with a “right to reconsider” option (Free Look Period), whereby the customer, if dissatisfied with the policy terms & conditions, can made request for cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period. Since, the complainant did not exercise this option, it establishes that he was well aware about the terms & conditions of the policy and at this stage has concocted the false story to cover his own lapses. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint and pleading no deficiency in service, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]           Both the parties have led arguments in their favour, while the ld.Counsel for OPs Sh.Arun Dogra,  Advocate raised an objection to the effect that this Forum at Chandigarh, has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case, as no cause of action has accrued to him at Chandigarh.

6]           We find merit in the contention of ld.Counsel for OPs.  The proposal form annexed with the complainant as Ann.C-1, by the complainant himself, clearly shows that it has been filled-up & singed by him at Panchkula. The address of the complainant, mentioned therein, is also of Panchkula.  Moreover, the payment has also been made at Panchkula, as is clear from Page No.11 of the Proposal Form.  This also proves that the complainant has falsely stated in Para No.1 of the complainant that the proposal form, has been delivered to him at Chandigarh. 

7]           So far as the correspondence exchanged between the parties i.e. Ann.C-3 to C-7 is concerned, the same cannot confirm any right of jurisdiction in favour of the complainant to file complaint at Chandigarh Forum.  Besides this, the premium receipts placed on record by the complainant, as Ann.C-8 & C-9, by way of additional evidence, is also of no help. These have been issued by New Delhi Office of OP as is clear from the stamp, which means that the premium was paid at New Delhi Office of OP and not at Chandigarh.   

8]           Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that no part of cause of action has accrued to the complainant under the jurisdiction of this Forum at Chandigarh. Hence, the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for OPs in this respect is held to be right & justified. 

9]           In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that this Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. Hence, this complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  However, complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. 

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