Delhi

New Delhi

CC/542/2010

Manmohan Kanojia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Feb 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./542/2010                                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

MANMOHAN KANOJIA

S/o Om Prakash Kanojia

c-358, Raghubir Nagar, Sbi Raja

Garden New Delhi-110027                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

1. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA LTD

        2^nd Floor Prakashdeep Building

         7 Tolstooy mard New Delhi-110001

 

2. HDFC BANK LTD          

Green park, New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …..Defendents

 

H.M. VYAS - MEMBER

 

                                                            ORDER

             CC  No. -542/2010        

                        On the basis of assurance/ promise given by OP-2 executive, who visited his home and gave information about the policy, the complainant obtained a life insurance policy no. WTG1397905  of  OP-1.   He was assured of at least 10%  per annum fixed guaranteed return after

CC NO. 542/2010

investing Rs. 25,000/- per year for 3 years. The complainant received the original policy after 15 days on 07.12.2006. The complainant made the payment till December, 2008. It is alleged that  the            

complainant approached OP-1 for his annual return as assured  but to utter shock the OP-1 returned Rs.22,000/-(approx) against the payment of Rs.75,000/- made against the said policy. The complainant sent letters dated 26/12/2009 & 04/01/2010 followed by e-mails to the Insurance Company to return the entire money but OP in its  reply dated 28/01/2010 turned down the request and reiterated the contents of the policy contract.. The complainant vide letter dated 05.02.2010 informed HDFC Bank  and the Bank referred the issue to the OP-1 for actions.

                         The OPs were noticed and the OP-1 insurance company raised various issues and contested the complaint. It is stated that the policy was issued which is Unit Linked Template Policy (Life Long policy).  It is stated that the OP issued the policy  only after receiving of signed declaration in the proposal form and satisfying with  the terms of age of 85 years from the complainant. The policy documents were provided to the complainant consisting of policy schedule, right to reconsider, notice, copy of proposal form, the first premium receipt and the standard terms and conditions of the policy which are IRDA approved policy documents. The complainant did not exercise his right to reconsider and made further payments     of premium.  All the allegations made against the OP-1 have been denied.  It is stated that the illustration statement clearly demonstrate the projected maturity/death benefit/surrender value at an assumed rate of interest of 6% and 10%.  The assumed rates of reurn are not guaranteed since the product is market linked and the value of policy depends on number of factors.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the version denying all text of the written statement and reiterated the gist and contents of the complaint. In the

 

CC NO.-542/2010

rejoinder to the written statement/ version, reiterated that he paid the premium of insurance policy for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and after paying premium for 3 years, the complainant was entitled for the return of entire amount along with assured return of 10% p.a.  All text not in conformity to the complaint has been denied.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit.  The OP filed written arguments. Detailed oral arguments were addressed.

The Ld. Counsel for the complainant in the rejoinder and during arguments questioned the authority of the officer who filed the written statement alleging that Sh. Gaurav Malhotra cannot be said to be the authorized person to represent the OP-1 because he was authorized through Special Power of Attorney (in short SPOA) dated 17/08/2007 executed by Sh. Rajeev Arora Director of the OP company.  In said SPOA it is not mentioned that by which document he was conferred powers to execute further attorney.  On merits, he admitted to have made payment till 2008, however, argued that the assurance of the OP-2 was considered to be true and accordingly, he made the payment.  Ld counsel for the complainant admits to have received the original policy dated 07/12/2006 after 15 days.

The Ld. counsel for the Op-1 argued on the same facts as mentioned in its version.

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties.

A bare glance on the factual matrix placed and relied by the parties the admitted position emerges that the after the complainant obtained the policy. The OP issued the Policy document to the complainant which

CC NO.-542/2010

 

was duly received by him.  The policy document provides for an option to the complainant/insured to reconsider the proposal and can get the policy cancelled within stipulated period of 15 days (the free look period).  It is

also not disputed by the complainant that he did not exercise his right to cancellation of the policy within the free look period. 

In view of above facts & circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the terms of the contract policy cannot be circumvented by the complainant by bald and unsubstantiated allegations. We therefore, do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hold accordingly.  The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

            Announced in open Forum  06/02/2019.

            The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

            File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                     PRESIDENT

 

             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                              (H M VYAS)

                                    MEMBER                                                        MEMBER