Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/231/2011

Baljit Singh Saini S/o Raja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Lehna

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.231 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 16.03.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 23.01.2017

Baljit Singh Saini aged about 64 years son of Shri Raja Ram, R/o Rajur Road, Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Reliance Life Insurance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Regd. Officer H. Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai- Maharastra-400710, through its Authorized Officer.
2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Officer Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
3. Rajiv Gupta son of Master Dina Nath R/o Mohalla Narain Dass, Village Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
4. Ms. Raman Gupta D/o Master Dina Nath, R/o Mohalla Narain Dass, Village Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. P.K.Lehna, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondents No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 24.06.2011.

              Sh. Deepak Behamani, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3 &4.

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Baljit Singh Saini has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the respondent No.1( hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). At the time of depositing the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the complainant was told that he has to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump sum only one time and the same will be returned to him after the maturity of 5 years with interest and also it was told that in case complainant wants to withdraw that amount before maturity period he may be allowed to do so. On the assurance of the OP No.3, complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- against consumer contact No. 9467631791 dated 18.12.2007. After a period of 3 years, complainant wanted  to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest but the Ops Insurance Company refused to give the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest. Finding no alternative, complainant has to accede to the terms and conditions elaborated to the complainant at the time of repayment and not before and only a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- was given to the complainant against the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited on 18.12.2007 and no interest was given to the complainant on this amount. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.01.2011 calling the OPs Insurance Company to make the balance payment of Rs. 46,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 18.12.2007 till the payment but the Ops Insurance Company did not comply with the notice. As the OPs Insurance Company has not refunded the balance amount of Rs. 46000/- alongwith interest, hence, there is a deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Insurance Company. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement  separately. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come to this Forum with clan hands; the life assured had submitted proposal form bearing No. 41510464 dated 18.12.2007 in his name offering to buy Reliance Golden Years Plan Policy. On the said proposal form, the life assured was issued a policy bearing No. 11253234 commencing from 20.12.2007 with a premium of Rs. 2,00,000/-. the life assured has opted for early payment of the insurance premium. Under the said policy, life assured had paid only one premium for Rs. 2,00,000/- in the first year. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant and the same were delivered to him on the address mentioned in the policy document through speed post vide POD No. EM-000374405 IN. In terms of the said policy, the terms and conditions of surrender, specifically incorporated in the policy bond as a fundamental term mentioning therein that “ you may surrender the policy after three (3) years from the commencement. The surrender value we will pay is a percentage of your fund balance according to the following table:

Year of policy surrender	Surrender value as percentage of fund value
First 3 years	NIL
4th Policy year	90%
5th Policy year	95%
6th  and subsequent policy year	100%

 

4.                     It has been further stated that at the time of entering into a contract of insurance with the OPs, the life assured was duly appraised of the key features of the ST & C in detail and the life assured after having understood the same, in complete cognizance of the ST & C of the Policy had entered into contract with the OPs. Amongst various terms and conditions one of the terms and conditions is that the life assured had also a Free Look Notice according to which the policy holder can get the policy cancelled within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents in case he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy in question. The life assured was provided with the policy schedule and standard terms and conditions of the policy in question. The life assured was also provided “ Premium Quotation and Illustration Statement” which gives projected maturity/death/surrender values at an assumed rate of interest at the rate of 6% or 10%.

5.                     It has been further submitted that after expiry of 3 years on 21.12.2010, the complainant approached the OPs to surrender his policy and had also filled up the necessary form for surrendering his policy. Upon which, the complainant was informed of the indicative surrender value as Rs. 1,53,471/- which is after deducting the surrender charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Copy of surrender request form dated 21.12.2010 filled by the complainant  is annexed herewith as (Annexure OP-5). Upon the request of the complainant, OPs surrendered his policy and returned the amount of Rs. 1,54,498.81 through direct credit in his account bearing No. 4960100000772 Axis Bank, Sadhaura and complainant has accepted the said amount without any protest thereby leaving no liability of the opposite parties against the complainant ( Policy status sheet Annexure OP-6). It has been further mentioned that company incurs heavy losses if the policy is cancelled by the policy holder within short time from the commencement of the policy as the company invests under the following heads for the policy: commissions paid for the policy, stamp duty charges, processing cost, Underwriting cost, Administrative Charges etc. at the time of giving the policy. These charges are clearly mentioned in the key features documents and terms and conditions, which are approved by IRDA and on merit as on the request of the complainant for surrender of the aforesaid policy dated December, 12, 2010, the OPs No.1 & 2 accordingly processed the request and paid back the fund value as per terms of the policy availed by the complainant for Rs. 1,54,498.81. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly requested for dismissal of complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2.

6.                     However, OPs No.1 & 2 after filing the written statement failed to appear, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.06.2011.

7.                     OP No.3 also appeared and filed his written statement besides preliminary objections stated on merit denied that he made contact with the complainant and allured him to deposit the amount mentioned in this complaint. However, the complainant in order to save income tax etc. approached the OP No.3 and requested him to advise the complainant as for where and how much amount he has to invest for saving income tax. Thereby the said amount as detailed in this para has been invested by the complainant voluntarily to save the income tax and not for the benefit of OP No.3 Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.3.

8.                     OP No.4 also appeared and filed her written statement by reiterating the stand taken by OP No.3 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.4 also.

9.                     In support of his case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as registered legal notice dated 15.01.2011 as Annexure C-1, Postal receipts as Annexure C-2 and C-3, Reply of the legal notice on behalf of Op No.3 as Annexure C-4, Acknowledgement as Annexure C-5 and C-6, Reply of the legal notice on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of proposal form as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of Identity card of Senior Citizen as Annexure C-10 and closed his evidence.

10.                   On the other hand, OPs No.3 & 4 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order dated 11.12.2015.

11                    However, at the time of filing of written statement OPs No.1 & 2 tendered documents such as photo copy of authority letter Annexure OP-1, Photo copy of application No. 41510464 alongwith proposal form as Annexure OP-2, Photo copy of Premium Collection Receipt as Annexure OP-3, Photo copy of terms and conditions of Reliance Golden Years Plan as Annexure OP-4, Photo copy of Surrender request as Annexure OP-5, Photo copy of pass book as Annexure OP-6 in support of their written statement.

12.                   We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

13.                   It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy called Reliance Golden Years Plan Policy bearing No. 41510464 on 18.12.2007 and paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the OPs No.1&2. The only version of the complainant is that it was assured on behalf of the OPs Insurance Company that after three years, if the complainant wished to withdraw the said policy, the OPs Insurance Company will make the full and final payment as per norms of the RBI but all the assurance given by the official of the OPs turned out to be false and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- invested by the complainant in the policy in question alongwith all the benefits.

14                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No. 3 & 4 argued at length that policy in question was a term of 5 years and premium paying term was 3 years  but the complainant paid only one yearly installment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 18.12.2007 and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and policy in question lapsed w.e.f. 18.12.2008. Even after that, complainant did not get his policy revived within a permissible revival period of two (2) years from the date of first unpaid premium which expired on 18.12.2008 and filed the present complaint on 16.03.2011. Thus, the contract of the insurance policy stands terminated upon expiry of the permissible revival period under the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 1,54,498.81 was paid to the complainant through direct Credit in his account bearing No. 496010100000772, Axis Bank, Sadhaura Haryana by the OPs No.1 & 2 after deducting the surrender charges as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same has been accepted by the complainant without any protest. Thus, the OPs No.1 & 2 have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy strictly in accordance with the law and nothing more is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy. Further, learned counsel for the OPs No. 3 & 4 argued that the complainant has invested his money in Reliance Golden Years Plan Policy just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed.

15.        Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

16.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. From the perusal of the receipt of premium and terms and conditions of insurance policy bearing No. 11253234 commencing from 20.12.2007 Annexure OP-3 & OP-4, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Reliance Golden Years Plan Policy in his name issued by the Ops in the year 2007. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

17.                   Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. The same view has been held in case titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium.

18.                   However, the complainant has himself surrendered the policy in question on 21.12.2010, upon which the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company had already refunded the surrendered value of Rs. 1,54,498.81  prior to file the present complaint and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint in para No.6 of the complaint. It means the OPs have discharged their contractual obligations under the policy in question. 

19.                   In the circumstances noted above, the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the Ops had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

20.                   Resultantly, we are of the considered view that neither the complaint is maintainable nor the same has any merit. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievances, (if so advised). Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 23.01.2017

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.