IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 27th day of February, 2015
Filed on 18.07.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.182/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. K.V. Subhakumar M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Company
Prasanthi, Muhamma India Ltd., 2nd Floor Prakash deep
Alappuzha Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg
(By Adv. B. Jeevan) New Delhi – 11
( By Adv. Josen Manavalan)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party under Pension Plus Unit Linked Policy. The regular annual premium amount to be paid was Rs.1 lakh. The complainant paid the first premium of Rs.1 lakh on 23.7.2008 and the opposite party had accepted the premium and policy document was issued to the complainant. On the commencement of the policy the opposite party had opened a unit account in the name of the complainant. As per the account 9874.081 units of Index fund was allotted to the complainant from the premium paid and NAV of the Index Fund was Rs.9109/- and the total fund value of the complainant as on 23.7.2008 was Rs. 89,943/-. The complainant did not remit any subsequent premium. The complainant submits that as per the terms of the policy if the opposite party did not receive the regular premium due during the first 3 policy years, the policy lapses, and the complainant is entitled to get the value of units allotted to his account on the commencement of the fourth policy year. The fourth policy year commences on 23.7.2011 and ends on 23.7.2012. Hence the opposite party is bound to pay the value of the units as on 23.7.2011. The complainant issued a legal notice through his Advocate on 26.4.2012 calling upon the opposite party to pay value of 9874.081 units within 7 days. Thereafter repeated demands were made by the complainant to the agents of the opposite party at Alappuzha to settle the matter. But the opposite party has not refunded any amount to the complainant and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party. But they did not file any version and subsequently the opposite party was set exparte.
3. The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the policy document marked as Ext.A1.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he had taken a pension plus unit linked policy from the opposite party and paid the first premium amount of Rs.1 lakh on 23.7.2008. Thereafter the complainant did not remit the subsequent premium and automatically the policy got terminated. The opposite party was bound to pay the value of units prevailing at the time of commencement of fourth year. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party, no amount has been refunded so far. Hence, he filed this complaint. The complainant filed proof affidavit and document Ext.A1 was marked. As per terms and conditions of Ext.A1 policy document it is stated that, “If the policy holder does not reinstate the policy within the aforesaid two year period, the policy will automatically terminate at the date of expiry of the reinstatement period and we will calculate the value of units pertaining to Top Up Premium, if any at the Unit Price applicable on the date of expiry of the reinstatement period and pay the same to the policy holder at the expiry of the reinstatement period or the commencement of the fourth policy year, whichever is later.” Admittedly if the policy holder did not pay the premium for 2 years, the policy will automatically get terminated. So the policy taken by the complainant got terminated as on 22.7.2011. So the complainant is entitled to get the fund value prevailing as on the date of expiry of the reinstatement period ie. 22.7.2011. Even though the notice was served to the opposite party they did not turn up. Since the policy taken by the complainant is the unit linked policy, the fund value is not a fixed one and it may fluctuate. According to the complainant the fund value prevailing at the commencement of fourth year was Rs.1,25,000/-, but no document was produced before the Forum to prove that the fund value prevailing at said period was Rs.1,25,000/-. Since the opposite party has not given any amount to the complainant so far, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the fund value prevailing on the date of expiry of the reinstatement period, ie. 22.7.2011 along with interest. Since the primary grievance of the complainant will be redressed squarely and adequately, we feel a further compensation is unnecessary. But the complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the value of units in the account of the complainant as on 22.7.2011 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.7.2011 till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Policy
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
