Delhi

New Delhi

CC/900/2012

M.R. Giri - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/900/12                       Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI M.R. GIRI,

D-85, OM VIHAR, PHASE-5

UTTAM NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110059

 

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

TATA AIG LIFE,

NOW KNOWN AS TATA – AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

208, 2^ND FLOOR, KANCHENJUNGA BUILDING,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

(AS VIKASPURI OFFICE HAS NOW BEEN CLOSED)

       

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

ORDER 

President :  C.K. Chaturvedi

The complaint is of alleged deficiency on the part of OP in mis-selling a policy called “Invest Assure Plus” for getting higher yield on investments.  It is alleged that on 29.9.07, he took a policy No.U1000548462 with one time premium of Rs.30,000/-.  He got the policy and noticed that Rs.1800/- were deducted for processing and Rs.28,200/- were allocated for 811.53145 units on 03.10.07.  He found that after 5 years the units became 750, and if the same trend continued, the units would reduce to zero and entire sum of Rs.30,000/- would be wiped out.  It is alleged that policy was sold on promise of good return.  The record shows that he took up the matter with Insurance Ombudsman in 2011, who observed that everything was in accordance with the terms and conditions.  He also raised the same issue in 2012 with IRDA, but nothing seems to have happened and he brought this complaint of deficiency in Forum in 2012.

We have considered the exparte evidence as OP was proceeded exparte on its non-appearance despite service.  We have considered the terms and conditions and proposal form signed by the complaint.  The proposal form at the top of the form itself stated that this investment was at risk to be borne by the complainant.  The application form shows that he selected 100% equity fund and not aggressive growth or stable growth, or short term fixed income fund.  The amount of insurance is only Rs.37,500/- with single premium of Rs.30,000/- for a policy tenure of 15 years.  The policy terms provided for administrative charges deductions.

In the face of such a nature of investment in equity Fund, the benefit is only at maturity of policy and not before, even if there is no growth in value of units linked to market.

In our considered view OP cannot be blamed for choosing of plan by complainant, where his money is not growing.

Undoubtedly, the name of policy i.e. Invest Assure Plus – appears to be a catchy one, only with a view to attract investment.  But the real terms and conditions are matters of detail and complainant has to look into it before accepting it and return the policy in 15 days relook period, if not acceptable.

The complaint has accepted the policy by not availing free look period and in 2007 and raised the question and approached this Forum in 2013, which is also completely time barred.

We do not find any deficiency on the part of OP and the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

          Pronounced in open Court on 18.02.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)               (RITU GARODIA)

     MEMBER                                 MEMBER