1. Heard Ms. Ritu Singh Mann, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Advocate, for the opposite party-1. 2. Surender Singh Mann (the complainant) has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties (i) to discontinue the unfair trade practice of making false representations to prospective customers for the purposes of procuring business; (ii) declare that the commitment and representation made vide email dated 10.11.2010, is binding on opposite party-1 and shall form a part and parcel of the Policy document, overriding contrary clauses in the Policy No.U058735165; (iii) declare that the policy is unfair and faulty, in so far as it provides for payment of only the Fund Value in the event of the complainant surviving the policy and payment of either the Sum Assured or the Fund Value in case of death of the complainant and direct that in either situation (of the complainant surviving the term of the policy or upon his death during tenure of the policy), the complainant/his nominee shall be entitled to the Fund Value as well as the Sum Assured; (iv) Award exemplary damages against opposite party-1 for employing unfair trade practices and enriching themselves at the cost of unwary customers who believe in the false representations made by the agents and employees of opposite party-1 and end up with services which fall far short of what has been promised. The damages may be directed to be paid into Legal Aid; (v) award cost of the litigation. 3. The complainant stated that Ms. Meenakshi Ranjan (opposite party-2) along with Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani, Location Head, Noida, from the office of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited approached the complainant in November, 2010 at his residence. They informed that Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited had come with a policy in the name of “Tata AIG Life Investment Assure Flexi Supreme Policy”. They told that this policy had a unique feature, wherein one could obtain life insurance cover up to the age of 75 years by paying premium for an initial lock-in period of 5 years only. Sum Assured would be 60 times of the annual premium amount and the death benefit would be guaranteed at 105% of the chosen Sum Assured. In nutshell Rs.10/- lacs deposited in first five years would grow to Rs.40/- lacs, in 15 years and thereafter double, in every five years. The complainant requested Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani to confirm the feature of the policy in writing to enable him to fully understand the terms of the policy. Then he sent an email dated 12.11.2010, confirming the aforesaid benefits. The complainant believed upon their oral representations followed by email and agreed for taking policy for a coverage of Rs.1.2/- crores, till he attains the age of 75 year. As demanded, the complainant paid annual premium of Rs.2/- lacs, on 30.11.2010. After encashment of the premium, opposite party-1 issued Policy No.U058735165 on 09.12.2010 and sent the Policy documents through letter dated 10.12.2010. On receiving Policy documents, the complainant examined the Terms and Conditions and found that discontinuance of payment of premium after 5 years would result in lapse of the risk cover and refund of total Fund Value. The complainant immediately contacted to Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani and requested to give a written clarification, in terms of email 12.11.2010 and also requested to provide a breakup of the premium amount as would be used towards risk cover and towards investment. Mr. Sahijwani assured that he would obtain a clarification, in terms of email dated 12.11.2010. Thereafter, the complainant reminded him several times on telephone but required clarification was not obtained. The complainant received a Unit Statement dated 09.06.2011, wherein total Fund Value was shown as Rs.161356.92/-. Mr. Sahijwani advised the complainant in June, 2011, to wrote a letter to opposite party-1 in respect of clarification. He also provided a Proforma vide email dated 16.06.2011. The complainant wrote a letter on that Proforma, signed it and handed over to Mr. Sahijwani, which was dispatched to opposite party-1. In response to that letter, Ms. Melinda D’Souza, Senior Executive Grievances Redressal Cell of opposite party-1 wrote a letter dated 11.07.2011, stating therein, that the policy would be discontinued, in case, the complainant did not pay the annual premium continuously for entire term of 29 years notwithstanding that the complainant have paid first five annual premium regularly. Aggrieved by the letter dated 11.07.2011, the complainant sent a notice dated 05.09.2011, to opposite party-1, mentioning about the detailed representations made by Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani and Ms. Meenakshi Ranjan, on the basis of which, the complainant bought the policy. Opposite party-1 replied the notice vide email dated 13.09.2011, in which, opposite party-1 shrugged off the misrepresentations made by its officer and agent and stated that in case of any discrepancy in the Policy document and Plan offered to you, the same should have been brought to our notice within 15 days of receipt of the letter dated 10.12.2010. The complainant, vide email dated 22.09.2011, informed that officer and agent of opposite party-1 had misrepresented, which was unfair trade practice, as such, he was forced to seek legal remedy but no reply was given. Then the complaint was filed on 21.02.2013 alleging that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and by misrepresenting got the policy issued. 4. The opposite parties filed their written reply on 16.04.2014 and contested the matter. It has not been denied that Ms. Meenakshi Ranjan (opposite party-2) along with Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani, Location Head, Noida, from the office of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited made representation in respect of feature of the policy as contained in Annexure-1. However, it has been stated that representation was according to the terms of the policy. It has been stated that proposal form of the complainant for issue of the policy dated 30.11.2010 was accepted by the competent authority on 09.12.2010 and policy was issued on 10.12.2010. Policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on 10.12.2010, which were delivered to him on 16.12.2010. In the covering letter dated 10.12.2010, it has been informed that the complainant had right to cancel the policy giving a written notice within fifteen days of receipt of the policy document. On cancellation of the policy, full amount of premium would be refunded. The complainant read the terms and conditions of the policy but did not exercise his right for cancellation of policy. The complainant deposited premium of the next year also. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as time barred and on merit. 5. The complainant filed his Rejoinder Reply on 16.02.2015, in which, the material facts as stated in the complaint were reiterated. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of Surender Singh Mann. The opposite parties filed Affidavit of Evidence of Prasun Pratik, Assistant Manager Legal. Both the parties filed their documentary evidence and short synopsis. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The complainant stated that Ms. Meenakshi Ranjan (opposite party-2), an agent and Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani, Location Head, Noida of opposite party-1, approached him in November, 2010 at his residence and they informed that Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited had come with a policy in the name of “Tata AIG Life Investment Assure Flexi Supreme Policy”; They told that this policy had a unique feature, wherein one could obtain life insurance cover up to the age of 75 years by paying premium for an initial lock-in period of 5 years only; Sum Assured would be 60 times of the annual premium amount and the death benefit would be guaranteed at 105% of the chosen Sum Assured; In nutshell Rs.10/- lacs deposited in first five years would grow to Rs.40/- lacs, in 15 years and thereafter double in every five years; Oral assurance was followed by an email dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure-C-1), sent by Mr. Pankaj Sahijwani. These facts have not been disputed except approaching the complainant at his residence by the officer and the agent. As such, misrepresentation by the opposite parties for obtaining “Tata AIG Life Investment Assure Flexi Supreme Policy” in respect of the benefits of the policy, is proved. 7. Misrepresentation gave right to the complainant under Section-19 to avoid the contract and claim for damages under Section-74 of the Contract Act, 1872. Opposite party-1 gave an option to the complainant to get the policy cancelled and receive back of his premium in covering letter dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-C-2). This letter was served upon the complainant on 16.12.2010 and the complainant came to know about the actual Terms and Conditions of the Policy. But he did not exercise his right to avoid the policy under Section 19 of the Contract Act, 1872. In written synopsis, opposite party-1 has stated that the complainant continuously deposited 6 annual premiums and committed default in deposit of 7th annual premium and subsequent premium, as such, the policy was discontinued and as per Terms of the policy Fund Value of the deposits of Rs.1736848/- was refunded to the complainant on 09.03.2019. This fact has not been disputed. 8. The complainant sought to change the terms of the policy according to the representation of opposite party-2 and the officer of opposite party-1, which is not permissible under the law. Under the law, the complainant can avoid the policy under Section-19 and claim compensation under Section 74 of Contract Act, 1872. As stated above, the complainant acquiesced his right under Section-19 of the Contract Act, 1872. As Fund Value of the deposits of Rs.1736848/- was refunded to the complainant on 09.03.2019 as such no further compensation was payable. 9. The cause of action arose to the complainant on 16.12.2010, when the Policy documents containing Terms and Conditions were delivered to him. Present complaint was time on 21.02.2013. Section - 24- A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides two years limitation for filing of the complaint. Supreme Court in Vidya Drilia Vs. Durga Trading Company, (2021) 2 SCC 338 and Secunderabad Cantoon Boad Vs. B. Rama, (2021) 5 SCC 705, held that limitation once started to run cannot be shifted by making representation. The complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. As such the complainant is liable to be dismissed as time barred. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is dismissed. |
