Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

110/2014

A.SenthilVel, S/o.R.Alagu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by its Branch Manager,M.s.Aviva Life Insurance Co.(India) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.Shanthi

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  29.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.110/2014

 

 

A.Senthilvel,

S/o.R.Alagu,

No.64, Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co.(India) Ltd.,

Rep.by its Branch Manager,

New No.2, Old No.182,

Ashirwad Towers, III Floor,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 12.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.A.Shanthi

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : Mrs.Eleveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant refund the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- deducted from the fund value with 12% interest from the date of surrender and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant availed a Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party vide a Policy No.AFP2902439 on 26.03.2010 and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from March 2010 to January 2014. The complainant was in need of money and he went to the opposite party’s office on 14.02.2014 and enquired about the value of the fund available in his policy. One Mr.Yespaul informed the complainant that the fund value of the policy is Rs.1,79,202/-. Then the complainant wants to know how much would be getting, if he surrenders the policy. The said Mr.Yespaul informed that he will get a sum of Rs. 1,78,400/-. On his directions the complainant met Mr.Kaushik and informed him that he want to surrender the policy. Then the said Mr.Kaushik obtained the complainant signature in an unfilled form and also collected necessary documents from him. The policy was surrendered by the complainant on 14.02.2014.

          2. However on 24.02.2014 a sum of Rs.78,526/- was credited in his account instead of Rs.1,78,400/- . The complainant went to the opposite party’s office and enquired with Ms. Vanitha, Assistant Manager that Mr.Yespaul and Kaushik attended his query. She called both of them and on clarification Mr.Yespaul informed that it is the responsibility of Mr.Kaushik to explain about the surrender charges. But Mr.Kaushik replied that Mr.Yespaul already explained about the surrender charges. Finally they informed that it is a communication gap and asked apologize for their mistake. In such circumstances, the complainant wanted to reinstate the policy or to pay the deducted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the fund value of the policy. The complainant also sent representation on 05.03.2014 to the opposite party to consider his request. The opposite party sent a reply on 11.03.2014 explaining about the surrender charges and apologizes for the inconvenience caused to him.

          3. The complainant was never informed about the surrender charges of his policy at the time of surrender. The opposite party adopted their own tactics and harassed the complainant and thereby committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 29.04.2014  and thereafter  the complainant filed this complaint  to direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- deducted from the fund value with 12% interest from the date of surrender and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s present policy in question is Unit Linked Policies and law is well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose. Therefore the policy holders of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. 

          5. The policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days and during which period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant did not raise any complaints/objections regarding the policy either within the Free Look Period of 15 days or within any reasonable time thereafter.  Thus, the contract of insurance attained finality and the opposite party have been continuing to provide coverage to the complainants.

6. Thus the complainant is only entitled to the surrender value under the said policy on account of the risk borne by the opposite party associated with the policy and the same has already been paid to him as per the Terms and Conditions of the Policy.  That the said policy was duly surrendered by the policy holder on 14.02.2014 along with the necessary documents and the company duly processed the surrender request as per the Terms and Conditions of the Policy and payment of Rs. 78,526/- was duly processed via NEFT into the account of the Policy holder and the same is duly admitted. Calculation of the Surrender Value is as under:

Fund Value on 15.02.2014: Rs. 179,202/-

Surrender Charge as 50 % of fund value pertaining to regular premiums as per the Terms and Conditions: Rs.89,601/-

Service Tax : Rs.11,705/-

Surrender Value = Fund Value – Surrender Charge – Service Tax = Rs. 78,526/-

It is pertinent to mention here that the Surrender value of Rs.78,526/- was strictly calculated as per the policy terms and conditions and the same was refunded to the complainant through NEFT. Therefore this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant availed a Life Insurance Policy  through his bank from the opposite party vide Ex.A1 Policy No.AFP2902439 on 26.03.2010 and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from March 2010 to January 2014 and  the complainant went to the opposite party’s office on 14.02.2014 and enquired about the value of the fund available  in his policy and the opposite party staff  one Mr.Yespaul informed the complainant that the fund value of the policy is Rs.1,79,202/-  and on surrender  he will get a sum of Rs. 1,78,400/-and then  on his directions the complainant met Mr.Kaushik  and he obtained the complainant signatures and surrendered the policy on the same day.

9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that  a sum of Rs.78,526/- was credited in his account on 24.02.2014  instead of Rs.1,78,400/- and hence the complainant went to the opposite party’s office and enquired with Ms. Vanitha, Assistant Manager that Mr.Yespaul and Kaushik attended his query and she called both of them and on clarification Mr.Yespaul informed that it is the responsibility of Mr.Kaushik to explain about the surrender charges and  Mr.Kaushik replied that Mr.Yespaul already explained about the surrender charges and finally they informed that it is a communication gap and asked apologize for their mistake and in such circumstances, the complainant wanted to reinstate policy or to pay the deducted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the fund value of the policy and however the opposite party had not done the  same inspite of representation sent by the complainant and hence the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

10. The opposite party would reply that if at all the complainant should have cancelled the policy within 15 days of the free look period and the complainant has not filed any proof to show that how he is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,78,400/- and on the other hand the complainant has paid premium only for three years period and  for the said period as per the Aviva New Freedom Life Plan – Charges (Ex.A1 at page 21)  he would  be entitled only 25% of the amount and not entitled 50% as argued by the complainant and therefore the opposite party has rightly refunded the amount and  hence he has not committed any deficiency in service.

11. The specific case of the complainant is that on the date of surrender on 14.02.2014 , he had enquired at the opposite parties office with Mr.Yespaul and he informed that a sum of Rs.1,78,400/- is available as fund value in his account and that was also confirmed by Mr.Kaushik and thereafter only he had surrendered his   policy that he would get the said sum of Rs.1,78,400/- from the opposite party and since a lesser amount was credited in his account he went to the opposite party  office and enquired with Ms.Vanitha, Assistant Manager. She called both of the aforesaid staffs and after enquiry, she informed that there is a communication gap and they apologize for the same and further these facts have not been denied by the opposite party either in their Ex.B6  reply notice or written version and therefore, according to the complainant  the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

12. The complainant specifically pleaded in his notice as well as in the complaint that after getting credit of Rs.78,400/-, the complainant wrote Ex.A3 letter to the opposite party that he lost a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and hence he want to continue the policy or otherwise pay the deducted  amount  from the fund value and further Mr.Yespaul and Mr.Kaushik are responsible for his loss. For the said letter the opposite party sent Ex.A4 reply to the complainant as follows;

We understand from your call that our Branch customer service representative has not informed you about the surrender value of the policy  at the time of surrender request, you are not happy with the surrender value and you wish to reinstate the policy.

Please accept out sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused.     

The above   reply of the opposite party admits that their customer service representative has not informed the correct surrender value of the policy at the time of surrender request made by the complainant and consequently they have also tendered their sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. If the representative of the opposite party could not have informed the complainant that he would get a sum of Rs.1,78,400/-, he ought not have made surrender at all. This fact further strengthened that after getting less amount than the assured amount by the representatives of the opposite party, the complainant informed that he wanted to continue the policy. This was also admitted by the opposite party in the above said letter. Further the uncontroverted specific allegations made by the complainant not denied in the written version amounts to admission of the same. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party representatives namely Mr.Yespaul, Mr.Kaushik wrongly informed the complainant about the surrender value of the  amount that he would get  a sum of Rs.178,400/- and instead only a sum of Rs.78,400/- is credited in his account is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly this point is answered.

13. POINT NO:2

          At the time of enquiry and surrender, the opposite party representatives informed that the complainant would get a sum of Rs.1,78,400/-. He was actually paid a sum of Rs.78,400/- and the complainant is entitled for the balance amount. Hence the opposite party may be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the balance surrender amount to the complainant. Having wrongly advised the complainant to surrender the policy and also paid the lesser amount than the amount informed to him, the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Hence for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh  only) towards the surrender amount to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th day of November 2017.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.03.2010                   Copy of Life Insurance Policy No.AFP 2902439

Ex.A2 dated 14.02.2014                   Acknowledgement Letter for Surrender of the

                                                    policy given by the opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 05.03.2014                   Representation given by the complainant to the

                                                    opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 11.03.2014                   Reply Letter given by the opposite party to the

                                                    complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 29.04.2014                   Legal Notice sent by the complainant with

                                                    Acknowledgement Due.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Key Feature Document

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Proposal Form

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Standard Terms and Conditions

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Surrender Request Form

 

Ex.B5 dated 22.04.2015                   Policy Account Statement

 

Ex.B6 dated 21.06.2013                   Reply to legal notice

 

Ex.B7 dated 11.03.2014                   Mail 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT