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

===========

Mahinder Singh, c/o Sh. Pritam Singh, resident of H.No.8, B-1, Village Paprh, Tehsil Mohali, District Mohali.

                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]  AVIVA Life Insurance, 5^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon, Mehrauli, Gurgaon, through its Branch Head/ Branch Manager.

[2]  AVIVA Life Insurance Company, Office at SCO No.101-103, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Representative.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Varinder Arora, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Arun Dogra, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        This complaint had initially been filed in the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, Punjab, but was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and opportunity was granted to the Complainant to file it before a Court having territorial jurisdiction (Annexure C-1).

          In the instant complaint the complainant has alleged unfair trade practice, day light robbery, cheating and misrepresentation by the Agents of the Opposite Parties.

          As per the Complainant he had been allured by the representative of the Opposite Parties by giving false assurances and had been sold one Insurance Policy No. RSG 1655620 on 16.08.2007. A premium of Rs.30,000/- was paid. The Complainant has also stated that he was assured that the amount would be refunded after three years with profits (Policy document Annexure C-2).  After the lapse of 03 years, when the Complainant went to collect the money due against the aforesaid policy, he was told that the policy had lapsed. Making various allegations, as stated above, against the Opposite Parties, which are beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and stating that the policy documents being in English language also amounted to unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-, along with compensation and costs.

2.        After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.        Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred, as the policy was taken on 16.08.2007. Complainant had been sent various letters for payment of premium in the year 2008. The allegations of the Complainant with regard to misrepresentation, cheating, fraud etc. are beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.

          As per the Opposite Parties, the factual background of the complaint relate to a proposal from dated 10.8.2007 duly filed in and signed by the Complainant in English against which a Policy commencing 16.8.2007 was issued to the Complainant. The policy documents were dispatched to the Complainant on 18.8.2007 vide Speed Post No. EHO739911054IN. The Policy documents included the Policy Schedule, the Right to Reconsider Notice, along with other relevant documents. The policy lapsed on 21.09.2008 due to non-receipt of renewal premium and policy status was changed to ‘early lapse’ when the grace period was over. Answering Opposite Parties further submitted that the policyholder has a right to reinstate the policy within 02 years of the due date of the first unpaid installment of regular premium. However, during the period from the due date of first unpaid installment of regular premium upto the date of possible reinstatement, the charges as specified in the Schedule, except the Mortality Charges and the Rider Charges, if any, will continue to be deducted. The policy status of the complainant was changed to ‘early lapse not payable’ on 17.08.2010 which does not acquire a surrender value. Hence, nothing is paid to the customer. 

          On merits, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the complaint was also filed before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, Punjab. The Opposite Parties have specifically denied that the Complainant is not well versed in English language, as he is 12^th pass and has filled and signed the proposal form in English language. They have denied that the Complainant was to pay only one time premium. All other allegations of the Complainant have been denied as totally false and baseless and the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.        Before going into the merits of the case, the proposal form, as well as the policy placed on record needs to be perused. The proposal form has been filled up in English language in Chandigarh. The annual premium is Rs.30,000/- for 15 years. The declaration has been signed by the Complainant himself. The complainant is now seeking refund alongwith interest.  In this regard, the operative portions of the Policy (Article 12.1 and 13.1) are as under: -

            “Article 12 Surrender Value

12.1  After the commencement of the fourth Policy year and subject to the payment of Regular Premium due in the first two Policy Years, the Policyholder shall, upon the termination of this Policy for any reason (other than the death of the insured), be entitled to a surrender value as at the date of surrender calculated as follows:”

“Article 13 Non Payment of Regular Premium after three consecutive years from the Commencement Date and Non-Forfeiture Provisions: 

13.1  Subject to Article 125, with effect from the commencement of the fourth Policy year, if the Policyholder has paid Regular Premium due for the first three consecutive Policy Years, but has failed to pay the Regular Premium due within the grace period of 30 days from the due date of unpaid Regular Premium at any time thereafter, the Policy shall remain in force for the full risk cover for 2 consecutive years from the due date of the first unpaid Regular Premium, during which period, the Policy may be reinstated.”

7.        The Complainant has made payment of one premium only in the year 2007. He has neither contacted the Opposite Parties, nor made any payment of premium thereafter. A complaint was initially filed before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, Punjab, on 01.04.2011 and decided on 07.06.2011. It was filed in this Forum on 08.07.2011. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with limitation. Section 24A(1) reads as under: -

“24A. Limitation Period. _ (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the national Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”

          The Complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay either before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, Punjab, or even before this Forum. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable on the point of limitation alone.

8.        Further, as per the terms of the Policy (Article 12.1 and 13.1), duly reproduced in Para 6 above, the Complainant has paid only one premium due to which the Policy has moved into the mode of “Early Lapse Not Payable”, meaning thereby that an early lapse policy does not acquire a surrender value if the customer does not get the policy reinstated within the revival period.  The policy hence gets terminated and nothing is payable to the customer.  

9.        In the present case, reinstatement would have been possible within two years of the due date. Now even the time for reinstatement is over.  Hence directions cannot even be given to the Opposite Parties to reinstate the policy. Moreover, the allegations of the Complainant with regard to misrepresentation, cheating and fraud are beyond the purview of this Forum and hence need no adjudication. 

10.       Hence, in view of above discussion, we do not feel that the Complainant has made out an adequate case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties. The case is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

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

Announced

09^th August, 2012.                                           

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER