Punjab

Sangrur

CC/295/2016

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

12 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  295

                                                Instituted on:    15.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       12.09.2016

 

Varinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh, resident of Village Mangwal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     AVIVA Life Insurance Company India Limited, Gaushala Road, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     Manager, Aviva Life Insurance co. Ltd. SST Nagar, Patiala.

3.     Indusind Bank Limited, Gaushala Road, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Sangrur through its Manager.

 

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Advocate.

For OP No.3             :       Shri V.G.Johar, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Varinder Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the assurance of the Manager of OP number 3 Shri Rajan Soni and Field Officer Tarsem Singh deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the shape of FDR on the ground that it will give more profits, as the said amount had been received by the complainant from the Punjab Government on account of compensation for widening of the roads. It is further averred that OPs number 1 and 3 are functioning in the same building as they are having the tie up with each other.  Thereafter the OP number 1 sent the policy number 10227820  to the complainant and he came to know that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been wrongly invested in Aviva New Family Income Builder policy for 12 years and the complainant had to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- every year, which was not possible for the complainant. As such, the complainant immediately requested the Ops to refund the amount and cancel the policy, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the present complaint is misconceived, misleading and after thought, that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it is submitted that OP number 3 is the referral partner of the OPs. It is further stated that the complainant himself shown his interest to purchase Life Insurance Plan of the OP and after understanding all the terms and conditions, he purchased Aviva New Family Income Builder Unit Linked Plan after filling the proposal form bearing number NUP16502353 on 30.3.2015 and the complainant opted to pay Rs.2,06,180/- as annual premium and the sum assured was Rs.48,00,000/- and as such, the Ops issued the policy in question to the complainant. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the insurance Act and as per the policy document, there is specifically mentioned that the policy holder has an option to reconsider the policy within a free look period of 15 days. It is further stated that in unit linked plans, the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policy holder. It is stated further that the complainant has not suffered mental agony, tension and harassment due to the Ops. It is stated further that the proper services have been provided to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is totally false and baseless, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the OP has no concern whatsoever with the working of OPs number 1 and 2, as such the OP cannot be held liable for the act, conduct and deficiency in any on the part of the OP number 1 and 2, that the complainant out of his sweet free will invested the amount in life insurance policy after going through the application form, offer document product brochure etc.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with it. It is denied that the officials of the Op number 3 lured the complainant to invest the amount with the OP number 1 and 2 as an FDR investment.  It is stated that the OP has only acted as intermediary for reference of complainant to the insurance company.   It has been sated that there is no role of the OP number 3 in investing the amount of the complainant with the OP number 1 and 2.  However, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copies of request for clarification, to Ex.C-3 copy of intimation letter, Ex.C-4 copy of acknowledgement, Ex.C-5 copy of response letter, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 copies of letters, Ex.C-9 specimen signatures, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11 copies of letters, Ex.C-12 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-13 copy of reminder letter, Ex.C-14 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-15 copy of DL, Ex.C-16 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-18 copies of bank account statements, Ex.C-19 copy of DL and Ex.C-20 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1&2/2 copy of proposal form, Ex.Op1&2/3 copy of report, Ex.p1&2/4 copy of quotation, Ex.Op1&2/5 copy of banking transaction inquiry, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of solution, Ex.OP1&2/7 details, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of classification, Ex.OP1&2/9 copy of certificate, Ex.OP1&2/10 copy of declaration, Ex.Op1&2/11 copy of DD, Ex.OP1&2/12 copy of statement of account, Ex.Op1&2/13 copy of declaration, Ex.OP1&2/14 copy of PAN card, Ex.Op1&2/15 copy of declaration, Ex.Op1&2/16 copy of letter, Ex.Op1&2/17 and Ex.OP1&2/18 copies of jamabandi, Ex.Op1&2/19 and Ex.Op1&2/20 copy of J Form, Ex.Op1&2/23 copy of letter, Ex.OP1&2/24 copy of specimen signature, Ex.Op1&2/25 and Ex.OP1&2/26 copies of ID proof, Ex.Op1&2/27 and Ex.Op1&2/28 copies of family income detail and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Keeping in view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

7.             The version of the complainant is that he visited the Branch Manager of the OP number 3 for investing the money in the shape of FDR and the OP number 3 called the representative of Ops number 1 and 2, who were in the same building and the complainant signed the papers believing that the amount is for the FDR. The complainant came to know about the policy only when it was received by him. The complainant then requested the Ops to refund the amount as he was not in a position to continue the policy in question. But, the OPs have not refunded the amount and hence they are not only deficient in service, but also have indulged in unfair trade practice.

 

8.             The Ops number 1 and 2 have submitted that the complainant has punched the policy himself and if the policy was not acceptable to him then he could have returned the same within 15 days free look period.

 

9.             The OP number 3 has submitted in the written reply that the complainant has taken the policy from the OPs number 1 and 2, as such the complainant is not a consumer of the OP number 3.  The OP number 3 has admitted that the complainant has his saving bank account number 10024993110 with them.  Further the OP number 3 has admitted that it had acted only as intermediary for reference of complainant to insurance company.

 

10.           Now the question which arises whether the complainant obtained the policy of his own or whether the OPs had taken his signatures on the policy forms instead of issuing FDR to the complainant.

 

11.           We have gone through the document Ex.Op1&2/9 and we find that the OP number 2 is the Corporate agent under license of insurance and its branch Manager Rajan Soni is the certificate holder for doing insurance business besides other banking activities.  From the document Ex.OP1&2/6 we find that the OP number 3 had put his signatures on the policy form. This corroborates the version of the complainant that the complainant visited the OP number 3 i.e. Indusind Bank Limited and the OP number 3 in order to earn the handsome commission on the policies of Ops number 1 and 2 called the OP number 1 and 2 and got the signature of the complainant on the policy forms. From the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the OP number 3 had put his signatures on many documents.  In the present complaint, the complainant had not gone to the OP number 1 and 2 rather he had visited the office of OP number 3 and the Ops number 1 and 2 were working in the premises of the OP number 3 and who in order to earn commission had introduced the OP number 1 and 2 to the  complainant and the complainant signed the papers considering that he is investing the money in the FDR as the Ops number 1 and 2 are also working in the premises of OP number 3.

 

12.           It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had requested for the cancellation of the policy vide letter Ex.C-6 and the same was acknowledged by the Ops number 1 and 2 vide letter Ex.C-7 and from the perusal of the document Ex.C-7, we  find that the Ops number 1 and 2 have not taken the ground that the said request is  after 15 days free look period. So, it means that the complainant lodged the request for cancellation of the policy within the stipulated period.  From the document Ex.C-10 which is dated 10.12.2015, we find that the OPs number 1 and 2 are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and had not refunded the amount. In the meantime, the complainant had also raised the concern with the Insurance Ombudsman vide letter Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13, but to no effect.

 

13.           In the present complaint, we find that the complainant was allured to sign the papers on the pretext to earn more profits for one time investment, but instead was issued a policy of 12 years having a premium of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited every year.  The Ops had issued the policy without even considering the fact that the insured person is capable of depositing the premium or not.   The OPs have placed on record J form Ex.OP1&2/19 which shows total produce for Rs.5,16,600/- out of this almost half the amount is spent for growing the crop and out of the rest the complainant had to support his family and virtually there is no amount left for the instalment of the premium.   The complainant visited the OP number 3 to deposit the proceeds of the land which was acquired by the government and as his land holding decreased, he visited the OP number 3 to invest the amount in the FDR, but the OP number 3 instead of dealing fairly with the complainant had got his amount invested in the policy.

 

14.           The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the judgments of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Commission, Punjab, delivered in First appeal Number 341 of 2013, decided on 7.1.2016 titled as Life Insurance Company Limited versus Manoj Kumar, wherein it has been held that “the policy was unit linked plan. No free look period option was exercised by the complainant in this case. The District Forum ordered the refund of the amount by deducting 10% amount therefrom under surrender charges on the basis of Regulation 2010. The counsel for the appellant argued before us that Regulation 2010 shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette and shall apply to all products of Unit Linked Life Insurance cleared by the authority thereafter. The notification of the Regulation 2010 was published in the year 2010 and the complainant purchased the policy on 1.05.2015, vide receipt Ex.C-1. It cannot be said that the policy was purchased prior to 2010 and hence above notification in the year 2010 can levy the discontinuance charges as per Regulation No.8. i.e. surrender charges of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and Surrender Charges Regulation 2010.  In the circumstances of the case; the order passed by the District Forum under challenge in this case cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous because there is no proof of courier receipt regarding service of insurance policy documents on the complainant in this case, as urged by the Op now appellant.   As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed”.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this citation is fully applicable in the present case as well.  As such, we further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited versus Preeti Prasad 2015(2) CLT 113(NC), wherein it has been held that since the insurance company could not place any document on record to substantiate that policy document was actually sent to the complainant and was received by him. There was no question of availing free look period of 15 days and the complainant cannot be bound by terms and conditions of the policy document.  In the present case also, the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the policy document was sent to the complainant and the same was actually delivered to the complainant.  As such, there was no question of availing free look period of 15 days in the present case.

 

15.           The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission pronounced in First Appeal No.1173 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Kaur versus Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, wherein in para number 5, it is mentioned that "perusal of disputed policy reveals that it was named as Life Long Unit Linked Fund and sum insured was Rs.14,00,000/- and regular annual premium amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. It also covered accidental benefits of Rs.14,00,000/-. Learned State Commission observed that complaint was not maintainable in the light of judgment of this Commission in III (2013) CPJ 203(NC) Ram Lal Aggarwalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, whereas, perusal of aforesaid judgment reveal that in the aforesaid case Unit Gain Super Diamond Policy was taken with Rs.2,00,000/- annual premium for 24 years. Policy in the aforesaid case was for investment purposes whereas, disputed policy is for covering life as well as accidental benefit and this policy cannot be equated with policy in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla (Supra). Learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable as policy was for  investment in speculative business. Learned counsel for the petition has placed reliance on judgment of this commission in 2012 Law Suit (CO) 606- Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Addanki Satyanarayana in which claim for unit linked policy with life insurance was held maintainable before Consumer Fora, though, in that policy maturity value was Rs.2,51,73,756/- and death benefit was only Rs.5,02,000/- whereas in the case in hand, sum assured was Rs.14,00,000/- along with accidental benefits of same amount. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint filed by the  complainant was maintainable before learned State Commission and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and appeal is to be allowed.

 

16.           So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the Ops are not only deficient in service, but also indulged in unfair trade practice and as such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lacs only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.02.2016 till realisation. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and litigation expenses.

 

17.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                September 12, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member