Delhi

New Delhi

CC/22/2017

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                 (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                              ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                       NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C.22/2017                                                  Dated:

          In the matter of:

Sh. Vinod Kumar,

S/o Late Hari Chand,

            R/o R-32, West Patel Nagar,

         New Delhi-110008.

…… Complainant

 

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Through its Branch Manager/Sr. Manager,

Having its office at

 

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01

 

……. Opposite party.

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was issued the policy bearing No.RSG1483490 by OP Co. and the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.96,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant want to continue the said policy but  OP Co. has refused to do so. Even the OP Co. is not agreed to return the deposited amount by the complainant.  The complainant visited several times to the OP Co. but  it failed to continue the policy or to return the amount paid with interest which amounts to deficiency in services, hence this complaint.

2.     Notice was issued to the OP.  Despite service none appeared on behalf of OP, hence it was proceeded with ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2017 by Predecessor Bench of this Forum.

 

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence

 

4.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions made by the complainant.

 

5.       Admittedly, the complainant received the policy in the year 2007,  if he was not satisfied with the policy than he ought to have approached the OP for the cancellation of the same. 

6.     As per policy terms and conditions, due to non-payment of further premium, policy in question was in  lapse status.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that he requested the OP to cancel the policy during free look period.  Insurance is a contract between the insured and insurer and both the parties are bound by the terms contained therein. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinod Puri as reported in I [2014] CPJ 341 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

Insurance contract has to be construed like any other contract on basis of its terms and conditions and outside aid for construction of insurance policy is impermissible.

7.     The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sony Cheryan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 is pleased to hold as under:

The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.

8.     Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr., reported in (1996) 3 SCR, 500, the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract and it has to be read strictly. It was observed:

In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however, reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and the cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for fire and extended to cover floor, cyclone etc. had come into being.

9.     The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ind Swift Ltd. versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in IV[2012] CPJ 148 (NC) is pleased to rule as under:

Construction of the policy is to be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is binding contract between the parties and nothing can be added or subtracted by different meaning.

10.    Similarly in LIC versus Banwarilal Yadav reported in IV[2013] CPJ 38 (NC) the Hon’ble NCDRC observed as under:

“Forum has no jurisdiction to go beyond terms and conditions of the Policy.”

11.    The NCDRC in yet another matter in the matter of Morien Chemicals Ltd. versus UCO Bank reported in III [2013] CPJ 261 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

“Insurance Company is not liable to pay damages which are not covered under the policy.”

12.    Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that since the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.96,000/- against the premiums, he is entitled for refund of the surrender value of the policy in question, although he failed to exercise his right of cancellation of policy in free look  period. OP is directed to pay to the complainant surrender value of the policy in question.

The present complaint is disposed off in above terms. A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on  03/09/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                         (H M VYAS)

                                           MEMBER                                                       MEMBER