Delhi

East Delhi

CC/17/2014

RAJENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ING VAISHYA LIFE INS. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 17/14

 

Shri Rajender Goyal

S/o Late Shri P.C. Goyal\

R/o B-30/1, Gali No. 8

Shashi Garden,

Patparganj, Delhi-91                                                        ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

ING Vyshya Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.

909-914, 9^th Floor

Kanchan Junga Building-18

Barakhamba Road

New Delhi – 110 001                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.02.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 17.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 20.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Rajender Goyal, the complainant against ING Vyshya Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.(OP) praying for directions to OP to pay matured amount with interest,        Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment,        Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief as may be deemed fit.

2.       Facts in brief are that on 06.02.2007, the OP issued policy bearing no. 00579637 to the complainant, for which an annual premium of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid.  The complainant paid 3 premiums for the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 as advised by the agent of OP.  It is stated that the agent had told the complainant that after paying              3 premiums and on completion of term of 5 years, the complainant will receive double the amount of his investment and sum insured of        Rs. 3,37,000/- in the event of the death of insured. 

          It is further stated that as the complainant cannot understand and read english properly and had signed the documents at the behest of OP’s agent.  After expiry of 5 years, the complainant could not withdraw the maturity amount despite efforts thus, on 19.09.2013 contacted officer of OP, where he was asked to reinvest the maturity amount in another policy in order to get the money.  His grievance remained unattended despite written complaint to the main branch of OP on 18.10.2013. 

          Copy of ID proof of the complainant, copy of policy, copy of receipts of premium paid, copy of complaint to OP dated 08.10.2013 receipt of speed post and complaint to OP Branch office dated 09.10.2013 have been annexed with the complaint alongwith terms and conditions. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, thereafter, they filed their reply stating that w.e.f. 29^th April 2014, the company name has changed to “Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.”.  It was stated that the complainant had submitted proposal form dated 31.01.2007 for Unit Linked Insurance product and the complainant was well aware of the features of the said policy.

          It was also stated that as the complainant had not exercised the option of cancellation during the free look period, thus, he was estopped from disputing the terms and conditions of the legally concluded contract.  It was further stated that the complainant had paid renewal premium for year 2008 and 2009 respectively and had failed to pay premium for the year 2010 and 2011.  It was also stated that as he Unit Link products are subject to market conditions and volatility thus no guaranteed or fixed returns could be assured and the complainant had invested for commercial purpose.  It was submitted by the OP that as per terms and conditions, certain charges for services were also levied in case the policy holder did not pay premiums and thus the complainant was liable to pay the same.  Clause 3.4 of the policy terms and conditions was reproduced “At any time after completion of the third policy year, the policyholder may surrender this policy by giving notice in writing to the company.  Upon surrender the policy, the company shall pay the policyholder’s fund value as on the relevant date, as reduced by the surrender charges.  On such payment the policy shall terminate forthwith and the company shall be relieved and discharged from all obligations thereafter.” and Rs. 81,835.75/- was the total value of units on 26.06.2014.  Thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  ROC was annexed as Annexure OP/1, proposal form as Annexure OP/2, terms and conditions of the policy as Annexure OP/3, statement of accounts as Annexure OP/4 and copy of letter dated 07.10.2013 as Annexure OP/5.

4.       Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where it was stated that OP had transferred Rs. 92,235.90/- through NEFT on 21.03.2015.  It was further stated that as the complainant had paid     Rs. 75,000/-, he was entitled to receive Rs. 1,50,000/- after expiry of     5 years as promised by the agent of OP.  Rest of the contents of the WS were denied and those of the complaint were reiterated.    

5.       Complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.  He placed reliance on copy of policy (Ex.CW1/2), premium receipts (Ex.CW1/3) and (Ex.CW1/4), written complaints to OP (Ex.CW1/5) and (Ex.CW1/6) and prayed refund of balance amount of Rs. 57,764.10/- due towards OP.

6.       OP did not file any evidence by way of affidavit and further stopped appearing; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

7.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsels for the complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record.  It is admitted that the complainant had paid 3 premiums. Signing of proposal form is also not disputed, when the complainant has signed the proposal form, it is implied that he is willing to bind himself with terms & conditions. Once the contract is executed by both the parties they are bound by the terms and conditions.  Clause 4.2 deals with discontinuance of regular premium as per which the claim of the complainant has been settled.  It is also admitted that Rs. 92,235.90/- have been paid to the complainant.  As, the complainant has already received the amount mentioned above as per terms and conditions, he cannot allege any deficiency in service against OP.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits without orders to any cost.      

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                          President