BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th December 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.111/2013
(Admitted on 20.04.2013)
Mr. H.B. Mohammed,
S/o Late Haji Suliaman,
Flat No.901, 9th Floor,
Retreat Apartment, S.L. Mathias Road,
Falnir, Near Post Office,
Kaprigudda, Mangalore.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri DS)
VERSUS
Mr. Charugulati,
Customer Advisory Team,
AVIVA Life Insurance Corporation,
India Ltd., AVIVA Towers Sector Road,
Opp: Golf course, DLF Phase,
V, Sector 45,
Gurgaon 122 003.
......OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Part No.1: Sri. KSNR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant contends he took Insurance Policy for Rs.1,50,000/ on the promise of opposite party the maturity period one year he will get double the amount assured. Sales Manager did not furnish conditions of the policy certificate to the complainant despite the repeated earnest request. On 11.11.2011 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- and another Rs. 60,000/ by cheque. This is reflected in policy account statement dated 19.11.2012. On 14.12.2012 the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.30,000/ as per advice dated 14.12.2012. Contending that the complainant took policy on the assurance investment will double after one year. But as for the promise he would not have purchased the policy with opposite party claiming that complainant does not intend to avail benefit under policy seeks refund of Rs.90,000/ paid premium with interest at 12% and also anotherRs.50,000/ towards cost and compensation.
II. Opposite party in the written statement claims the cause of the claim arose in the November 2009 in the said policy issued to the complainant was filed by complainant is barred by time under sec 24 A of C P Act. The complaint is based on mere surmises and mere conjectures. The refund of the amount paid as premium cannot be sought. As it was made beyond 15 days of free look in period from the date of issue of policy as required under the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders) protection regulation 2002 the provision of C P Act cannot be utilised of request for cancellation of policy. The complainant is only entitled for his surrender value as per the terms and condition of the policy on account of the barred out by opposite party associated with the policy for 3 years. Under Life Saver Plus policy as per the complainant filled and signed the proposal form wherein the details in the prescribed from proposed premium of Rs.30,000/ has to be paid assured the sum of Rs.1,50,000/ p.a. on the declaration made on information provided in the policy in question was issued to complainant with date as 11.11.2009 which was delivered on him 16.11.2009. There is separate mention that in the policy schedule i.e. a life saver policy and the last date of premium is 11.11.2012. The complainant himself annexed letter dated 16.11.2011 in his policy account payment premium notice dated 5.10.2012 and account statement. He took in the 19.11.2012 and payment advice which were known to complainant. The policy document containing a notice written to reconsider that the policy holder can cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the date of receiving the policy. The complainant himself obtained for 15 years payment policy. Under the terms of the policy No.2 whether the policy holder is either get the policy or the surrender as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence seeks dismissal.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. H.B. Mohammed filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents not marked. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Watan Kumar Bhajanka (RW1) Assistant Manager Legal also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.R1 to R2 detailed in the annexure.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant purchased policy from opposite party and paid premium for 2 years is not in dispute. Despite the complainant as consumer and the opposite party as the service provider having undertaken to the risk of life of the complainant towards served provider. The allegation of complainant is opposite party promised doubling of the investment in one year of investment but when complainant demanded payment the amount paid was much less than the investment made by complainant. The entitlement of the doubling the amount of invested amount is disputed by opposite party. Hence there is live dispute between the parties as defined under the provisions of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): The complainant made investment and Ex.R1 is the copy of the application given at the time of investment with opposite party Aviva life insurance shows the very first line of the application was quoted In Unit Linked Plans, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder the amount invested by complainant as mentioned in the complaint is not disputed by opposite party. the only defense taken the terms of the policy was made known to the complainant within 15 days looking in period option given as required under IRDA rules. Infact in answer to question 5 in the interrogatories the complainant mention that is the only an assurance given by the agent in doubling the amount within one year. Question No.5 of the interrogatories and answer of the complainant is therein to the said question reads thus:
5. Do you have any document show that as per policy assured you that you will get double the sum assured within a period of one year period of time?
5. Answer to question No.5 : It is only on the strength of the assurance given by the agent, I have stated.
Question and answer pertaining to 6 to 10 are also relevant the read as follows:
6. Can you say when he has misguided you and issued policy?
6. Answer to question No.6 : A few days prior to 05.10.2011
7. The opposite party issued to you the original policy and policy documents to you, is it not?
7.Answer to question No.7: Without the terms and conditions.
8. The terms and conditions of the policy clearly mentioned in the said policy, is it not?
8. Answer to question No.8 : I do not admit
9.The policy was issued to you on 11.11.2009 and the same has been dispatched to you by Blue Dart courier, is it not?
9. Answer to question No.9 : I do not remember
10. Have you raised any objectins about the terms and conditions of the policy within free look priod of 15 days from the date of issuance of policy? If yes, can you produce any document for the same?
10. Answer to question No.10 : There is not such condition I am not aware of it since the terms and conditions of the policy has not been supplied to me by the opposite party.
Thus it is clear from the reading of the above the answer given by the complainant question No. 9 and 10 evasive and only mentions the copy was not concerned condition of the policy was not sold. As seen from Ex.R1 at Sl. No. 8 mentions the amount invested as the specific mention as to type of policy is ULIP i.e. Unit linked Life Insurance Policy to which the complainant signed the document with date as 28.10.2009. Hence we are of the view that the complainant cannot be heard to say he was not aware as to the nature of the conditions.
As seen from Ex.R2 the standard terms and conditions of the policy at Sl.No.5 as to surrender value of the closures on which our attention was drawn on behalf of opposite party are relevant for a just decision of the case. 5(a) of the policy stands found on Ex.R2 reads thus:
- After completion of the first three Policy Years, this Policy may be surrendered by the Policyholder and a Surrender Value shall be payable provided the Regular Premium due for at least one Policy Year has been received by Us. The Surrender Value will be equal to the value of Units pertaining to Regular Premium less the Surrender Charge on Units pertaining to Regular Premium, as mentioned in the Schedule, plus the value of Units pertaining to Additional Regular Premium and Top Up Premium, if any.
The learned counsel for complainant has drawn our attention to a reported Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in I (2013) CPJ 644 (NC): HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., it is held interaila quoted thus:
Hence revision-Petitioner was duty-bound to supply terms and conditions of policy to complainant immediately after receipt of premium
In the case on hand there is specific mention made by opposite party of supplying the copy for the terms and conditions and if that is not sufficient EX.R1 referred earlier at Sl.No.8 indicates that the invest is in the ULIP hence we are of the view that complainant cannot be heard to say that he was not made aware of as to the terms and conditions of the policy. Infact it is not the case in the complaint that he was not given took in period of 15 days by opposite party. Hence the contention of the complainant cannot be accepted. Hence we answer point No.2 in the Negative.
POINTS No. (iii): The complaint is liable to dismissed. Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th December 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. H.B. Mohammed
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Watan Kumar Bhajanka, Assistant Manager Legal
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Copy of proposal form
Ex.R2: Copy of terms and conditions of policy
Dated: 15.12.2016 PRESIDENT
