Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/253

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Sarju Puri

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.253   of 2013                                                    

                                                                      Date of institution  : 06.03.2013       

                                                           Date of decision     :  05.01.2015

 

Inderjit Singh son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, resident of village Sujjon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

 

…….Appellant/complainant-

                                                Versus

1. M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon-Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana).

 

2. M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Chandigarh Road, NawanShahr.

 

……Respondents/Opposite parties-

3.  Smt. Gurmail Kaur wife of Shri. Inderjit Singh, resident of village Sujjon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                             …….Proforma respondent

 

First Appeal against the order dated 07.02.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum SBS Nagar,  

Quorum:- 

           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                         Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

          For the appellant                    : Sh.Sarju Puri, Advocate

          For the respondent No.1&2 : None

         For the respondent No.3      : Exparte

 

 

 

SURINDER PAL KAUR,MEMBER :

 

                 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant  no.1 against the order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar(in short, 'District Forum'), vide which the complaint filed by him and the other complainant  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986,(in short the 'Act'),  was dismissed with liberty to complainants, to receive the surrender value i.e. Rs 81000/-, offered by the opposite parties to the complainants.

2.                Brief  facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainants were approached by the Insurance agent of the opposite parties at IndusInd Bank, Banga,  who showed rosy  pictures to the effect that in case they made a deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-  in five yearly  instalments of Rs.30,000/-, each , they will get an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-  after the period of five years. They fell into the  temptations of the said Insurance Agent of the opposite parties and purchased the Insurance Policy in the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and made payment of Rs.1,50,000/-, in 5 yearly  instalments of Rs.30,000/-, each .  After completion of  five years , when they approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of Rs.2,10,000/-,  as promised by them, they, instead of making the payment of Rs.2,10,000/- to them, came up with the  false excuse that it was a life insurance  Policy and they were entitled  only  to an amount of Rs.81,000/-. That act of the opposite parties not only amounts to cheating and  defrauding them but also  amounts to deficiency in service. They filed the complaint against the opposite parties before District Forum seeking the directions to pay them Rs.2,10,000/-,  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay  compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of deficiency in service, harassment and litigation costs.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties filed their joint written reply before District Forum and took the preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the same has been filed after more than 2 years of the issuance of the Insurance Policy. They pleaded that after duly deliberating and understanding all the terms and conditions of Life Long Unit Linked Plan, complainant no.1(Inderjit Singh) filled and signed the Proposal Form bearing no.NUP10750147 dated 8.3.2007.  In the proposal Form, the complainant  gave all the relevant details  and information in the prescribed form  for a proposed premium amounting to  Rs.30,000/-; which was  to be paid annually and for which the sum assured was Rs.2,10,000/-. On the basis of declaration and information provided in the Proposal Form, the Policy bearing no.WLG1637192 was issued to the complainant with the date of commencement as 27.7.2007. The policy documents, along with policy schedule and standard terms and conditions of the said policy, were despatched at his mailing address via speed post bearing no.EP79285130IN and same was not returned back. Thus, it can be presumed that the same were delivered to him.  It was clearly mentioned in policy schedule that said policy was a “Life Long Unit Linked policy” and date of Final instalment was also given. The said Policy contained a notice on Free-Look whereby the Policy holder had a right to reconsider his decision to purchase the Policy within 15 days of receipt of the Policy Documents, and in case he did not agree to the terms and conditions of the said Policy, he could get the same cancelled. But he did not do so. Thus, the contract of insurance attained finality and the continued to provide coverage to the complainants. On 12.05.2010, they received three requests from the complainants regarding change in address, change in name and change in nominee. They duly entertained those requests and replied to the complainants, vide letter dated 14.5.2010.The said Policy was due for premium on 27.7.2012. However, complainants failed to deposit the premium due to which the status  of the said policy was changed to "In force Notice Period" on 27.08.2012. Inforce Notice Period takes place when the premium discontinues after 36 months from the date of coverage. During that period, the policy holder was provided with complete policy cover and had an option to provide advance notice whether he wanted to continue his Policy without paying any further premium. The other option available with the policy holder during that period was that he could have either got the said policy reinstated or surrendered as per the terms and conditions of the said Policy.  There was no deficiency in service on their part. They prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant No.1  as no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and respondent no.3/complainant no. 2 was proceeded against exparte. We have also gone through the records of the case very carefully.

6.                It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant no.1 that the District Forum  failed to appreciate the evidence produced before it by him and returned a wrong finding in favour of the opposite party . He further submitted that complainant is  an illiterate person and that it was on the  misrepresentation of the agent that he agreed to purchase the policy by taking it  that the  premium of Rs.30,000/- per annum was payable only for five years and the benefits of Rs.2,10,000/- were payable to him after 5 years. Neither he had gone through the contents of the proposal form nor the same were explained to him by the agent. Therefore he can not be made bound by the contents thereof. Moreover, complainant  is only matriculate and the manner of appending signatures in English language cannot be taken to mean that he was a well educated person. The sum assured of Rs.2,10,000/- was the same as quoted by  him in his complaint. Further  it cannot be conceived that for a 33 years term policy,  with last date of premium in the year  2040, the sum assured would only  come to Rs. 2,10,000/- against of annual premium of Rs.30,000/- for 33 years. He prayed for acceptance of appeal and setting aside of the impugned order of the District Forum.

7.                No doubt, the complainant No.1 in support of his averments proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, but the same was duly rebutted by the affidavit of Shri Watan Kumar Bhajanka, Sr. Executive Legal of opposite party no.2(Ex.OP/A). Deposition made by Mr. Bhajanka is corroborated by the documentary evidence, which consist of proposal form (Ex.OP2). A perusal of the same shows that proposal form, bearing no. NUP 10750147, was filled on 09.05.2007 and the declaration made therein was duly signed by the complainant. It is now well settled that when the proposal form is filled up for obtaining the insurance Policy, the agent, who fills up the proposal form, is to be considered as the agent of the proposer. Complainant has proved on record his own affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), which is in English and as per verification thereof, he had verified all the paras thereof to be correct to the best of his knowledge. There is no endorsement of the oath commissioner that contents of his affidavit were explained to the deponent in some other language. If the complainant is relying upon his affidavit, which is in English, he cannot take the plea that he is illiterate and is ignorant about the English language.

8.                Mr. Bhajanka also deposed in the affidavit Ex. OP/A that policy bearing no. WLG1637192 was issued to the complainants having date of commencement as 27.07.2014. The policy documents with policy schedule, and terms and conditions were despatched to him at his mailing address via. speed post bearing no. EP79285130IN and same did not return back. As such, it can be presumed that the same was delivered to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of Life Long Policy attached with policy document as Ex.OP1, in the complainant was offered 15 days free look period for getting the Policy cancelled, in case he did not agree with its terms and conditions, but he never exercised that option during the free look period; which shows that the policy so issued by the opposite parties was acceptable to him. He approached opposite parties  after 5 years of issuance of the policy, which amounted to surrender of Policy.

9.                The opposite parties have placed on record the standard terms and conditions of the policy as Ex- OP3, article 14 of which deals with the “surrender value” and provide as under :-

Article 14  Surrender Value

“14.1   Subject to Article 17, with the effect from the commencement of the fourth policy Year the policy holder is entitled to receive a surrender value upon the termination of the policy (other than the death of the insured) provided that all Regular Premium due have been paid for at least two full Policy Years.

14.2 The surrender value is equal to the surrender value of the initial units , which is equal to the value of all Initial units less a surrender charge on the initial units  as specified in the Schedule and the value of all Accumulation Units is respect of the Regular Premium less a Surrender Charge on Accumulation Units in respect of the Regular Premium as specified in the Schedule.

14.3 If any Top Up Premium has been paid  by the Police Holder , the value of all Accumulation Units in respect of Top Up Premium less a Surrender Charge on Top Up Premium as specified in the Schedule shall be payable ."

Once the proposal form, was filled by the complainant for obtaining the policy, in question, and the same was accepted by the opposite parties and the complainant failed to get the policy cancelled within the free look period, he was bound by the terms and conditions. Therefore, by virtue of above said Article, he was entitled to only the surrender value. It is not the case of the complainants that the surrender value was not correctly calculated by the Opposite Parties. The surrender value of Rs. 81,000 has already been offered by the Opposite Party to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

10.              In view of our above discussion, the appeal filed by complainant No.1 is dismissed and the impugned order of District Forum is affirmed and upheld.   

11.              The arguments in this case were heard on 31.10.2014 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

 

 

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT                                

 

                                                          (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                               MEMBER

         

                                                        (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January    05, 2015                                           MEMBER

RK 2