BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 277/2011 Filed on 06.09.2011

ORDER DATED: 20.04.2016

Complainant:

Dr. C. Josey Neroth, Neroth House, Kadappakkada, Kollam-691 008.

                                  (By Adv. S. Laila)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd., Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF-Phase V, Gurgaon-122 003.

2. The Regional Manager, M/s Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd., Ashirvad Tower, Plot No. 2, Old No. 182, 3^rd Floor, Kodambakkom High Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai-600 034.

3. The Branch Manager, M/s Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Rema Plaza, S.S. Kovil Street, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram-1.  

(By Adv. A.G. Syam Kumar)

This C.C having been heard on 03.02.2016, the Forum on 20.04.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

In the instant case, complainant had taken a one-time policy vide No. RPG 1614373 for Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the instruction of the then Branch Manager, Kollam of opposite party.  But no policy document was issued to the complainant.  After 1½ years the complainant was contacted by a person from the office of the 3^rd opposite party and asked him to make second premium installment.  The complainant informed him that the policy taken by him is of one-time investment and he has no obligation or liability to pay any further, but there was no responds.  After months, he started getting calls from Mumbai office demanding second installment premium.  He made complaints to the 3^rd opposite party, but on enquiry it was told that the complaint had been rejected in limine.  On 07.01.2010 complainant registered a fresh complaint on line to customer service requesting to refund the amount deposited by him with benefits accrued according to the then market value.  No reply was received from the opposite parties even after his repeated complaints.  Hence on 13.06.2011 complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with all benefits and complainant received reply dated 04.07.2011.  The non-payment of the amount with benefits accrued till the date of repayment is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complainant file this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with all the accrued benefits thereon till the date of payment and if opposite parties are not ready given the benefits accrued to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 18% interest from 17.07.2007 till the date of repayment along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost. 

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version.  The opposite parties in their version submitted that the policy issued to the complainant under the pension plus based on the duly filled and signed proposal form dated 29.06.2007.  It is specifically proposed a premium amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- which has to be paid on annual basis.  The policy was issued to the complainant on 17.07.2007 and policy documents along with schedule was delivered to the address of the complainant.  There was no communication from the complainant within the free look period.  The complainant failed to deposit second premium even after reminder letter sent by opposite party, as a result of which the policy lapsed.  The opposite party duly replied to the mail dated 05.03.2011 through two e-mails.  The opposite party will be unable to cancel and refund the amount to the complainant.  It is further submitted that the cancellation of the policy under free look period the entire premium paid by the policy holder is refunded back.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  It is further submitted that the policy document setting out the terms and conditions of the policy was delivered at the address of the complainant on 18.07.2007 vide speed post.  Hence complaint is only to be dismissed. 

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 marked.  PW1 and PW2 examined from the complainant’s side.  No affidavit filed by opposite parties.  Exts. D1 and D2 marked through complainant. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he had taken a one-time policy from the opposite parties for Rs. 1,50,000/- but no policy document was issued to him.  After 1½ years opposite parties’ office contacted him and asked him to make second premium installment.  He informed the opposite parties that his policy is one-time investment and not liable to pay any installments.  The complainant approached this Forum for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with all benefits.  The contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complainant has taken policy under pension plus plan and the opposite parties issued the same on the duly filled and signed proposal form of the complainant.  At the time of cross examination complainant admits the Ext. D1 document.  In Ext. D1 it is stated as pension plus policy and term is 5 years.  The opposite parties further contended that when the complainant received the policy documents and was not satisfied with the terms and conditions could have cancelled the same within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document.  But according to the complainant he has not received any policy document.  At the time of cross examination also complainant deposed that he received only the receipt and not the policy document.  He further deposed that the amount was invested, so he did not enquire about any policy document.  The opposite parties also contacted him only after 1½ years.  Here, when the complainant deny the receipt of policy document, the burden of proof is on the opposite parties to prove that the document has been sent to him.  The opposite parties contended that the policy document has been delivered at the address of the complainant on 18.07.2007 vide speed post bearing No. ET 430021265I N.  But the opposite parties did not produce any document to show that the policy documents are delivered to the complainant.  While considering the facts documents and deposition we are of the view that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the opposite parties’ side.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount accepted from the complainant and to compensate for the gross negligence.  The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- with 9% interest from 17.07.2007 along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) with 9% interest from 17.07.2007 within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and costs of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only), failing which the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default with compensation and costs.  

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 20^th day of April 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 277/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Dr. Josey Neroth. C

          PW2  - Seema Satheesh

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Medical certificate issued by Dr. Vijayaraghavan dated 22.08.2012

P2     - Copy of the document of shield insurance dated 02.06.2011.

P3     - Copy of the document of travel health insurance dated 02.06.2011

P4     - Copy of e-mail dated 02.06.2011

P5     - Copy of suit notice of 35/11 dated 13.06.2011

P6     - Copy of reply of legal notice dated 04.07.2011

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

          D1     - Copy of proposal form of Aviva Life Insurance

          D2     - Copy of proposal form of Aviva Life Insurance

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb