Delhi

New Delhi

CC/776/2011

Deepa Nayar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.776/2011                                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Deepa Nayar,

W/o Sh. Manu Nayar,

R/o 6/3, South Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.

           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Through Managing Director,

Delphi-B Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue,

Hiranandani Business Park, Powai,

Mumbai-400076.

 

Also at:

 

2nd Floor, Unit No.SS-3 & SS-4,

Aditya Mega Mall, Plot No.9 D, Central Business,

District, Shahdara,

Delhi-110092.

 

2. The Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,

          25, Barakhamba Road,

           New Delhi.

        Through Branch Manager

   …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased  a policy of  OP through their authorized representative HSBC Bank i.e. OP-2 and paid a premium  of Rs. 3 lacs on 30.9.2007. The complainant was informed that she is allowed to withdraw the money at any time after three years and no withdrawal charges would be levied to exercise this right. 

2.     Complainant approached OP-1 to know the fate of money saved on the recommendation of OP-2, the official of the OP-2 sent her back with the statement that the policy has 3 years lock-in period, hence the growth of the same would not reflect.  Again on 19.6.2010, complainant visited the office of OP-1, at that time, her account statement show NAV as Rs.2,20,102.03/- and the official of the OP assured her that after 5 years NAV would increase.  Complainant received a letter dt.1.10.2010 from OP-1 wherein the Unit Statement showed the surrender charges of the policy as Rs.1,86,222.67/-  and Rs.60,000/- as total premium allocation charges.  After receiving the letter, complainant approached both the OPs, after a period of 5 years to withdraw the money but OPs could not pay her money, rather, on her request, OP-1 sent a letter dt. 1.12.2010 with a cheque of Rs.62,074.22/- as surrender charges of the policy.  The complainant again approached both the OPs for getting the refund of Rs.3 lacs deposited by her along with interest but nothing has been done by the OPs till date, hence this complaint

3.     Notice was sent to both the OPs,  since none appeared on behalf of OP-1, it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte by our predecessor bench on 3.7.2012.

4.     Complaint has been contested by the OP-2. It denied any deficiency on its part.  It is stated that OP-2 is not the service provider to the complainant for Insurance product in dispute and has not committed any deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant.

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

 

6.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

7.     Perusal of the file shows that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs on 30.9.2007 with OP-1 against a premium.  She has not mentioned in her complaint about the date of the receipt of the policy docket to her. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that at the time of issuance of the policy, assurance was given to her that she had to pay one time premium of Rs.3 lacs and no demand whatsoever  would  be raised in future and the NAV of the product in question would increase after five years.  She has placed on record the copy of first life Insurance Premium receipt, in which next premium due date was mentioned i.e 30.9.2008. Despite knowing the facts that the next date of premium is 30.9.2008, the complainant had not taken any step either to pay the premium or  to ask the OP to refund the amount or to cancel the policy in question. The complainant did not pay further premium due to which the policy moved into lapsed status. 

 

8.     As per her averment, on various occasions, she approached OP-1for getting the status of her policy but did not raise any single objection regarding the mis-selling of the policy.  Due to non-payment of the premium, the policy in question stood lapsed and as such OP-1 sent her the cheque of the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy which is justified.

 

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in services of OP, the present complaint is devoid of merit, same is hereby dismissed.

        Copy of the order may be forwarded to the complainant to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 18/04/2019.

 

                               (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                         PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                         MEMBER