Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/161/2019

Aviva Life Insurance Company India Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sabinder Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Malhotra & Vandana Malhotra Adv.

05 Apr 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	161 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	30.07.2019
Date of Order	:	05.04.2021

1.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, through its CEO & Managing Director, Shri Trevor Bull, Head Office : Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122003, Haryana.

2.     Aviva Life Insurance Company India Private Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch office : Aviva Towers, SCO Nos.45-46-47, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh UT 160017.

 

…..Appellants /Opposite Parties.

Versus

Smt. Sabinder Kaur daughter of Shri Prem Singh Gill, aged about 64 years, resident of House No.114, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh U.T. 160022.

                                                          …. Respondent/complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

       

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.882 of 2017 against the Opposite Parties, which  reads  as under :-

“13.        In the light of above discussion and conclusions arrived at, referred hereinbefore, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund the balance amount of Rs.50,954/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 9.6.2017 till realization;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.            In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission), only dispute was that the complainant took policy in the year 2006 from 2006-2039 and four annual premiums in the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- were deposited till 2009 but thereafter, the Opposite Parties enhanced the premium, therefore, fifth premium for the period 2010-11 was not paid. The complainant was misled by the Opposite Parties, as original policy documents alongwith terms and conditions and option of the complainant on freelook period was not supplied. After lock-in period, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 29.04.2016 informed that they would be deducting Rs.2,834/- on account of various charges and the total fund of Rs.1,00,000/- invested for life insurance deteriorated to a menial sum of Rs.49,399.59. Therefore, the complainant requested for refund of the amount, to which, Rs.49,046/- was transferred by the Opposite Parties in the bank account of the complainant on 09.06.2017 after retaining the huge amount, which amounted to deficiency in service.

3.                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties.

4.                We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

5.                Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Parties has submitted that the complaint was time barred as cause of action arisen, if any, was in the year 2006 and the complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2017 i.e. after a gap of more than 11 years. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant deposited four premiums and thus it is clear that she was happy with the policy and did not cancel it in 15 days as provided to her but subsequently failed to pay the annual premiums, therefore, the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of the same. He further submitted that on the request of the complainant on 05.06.2017 for surrender of the policy, which was duly done and the surrender value to the tune of Rs.49,046/- was transferred to the account of the respondent/complainant on 09.06.2017. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant failed to place on record any letter which shows that she never received the policy. He further submitted that the investments were subject to market risks, in which, the NAV can go up or come down and the amount to be paid as per the terms and NAV and no other amount was payable. He further submitted that terms were sent alongwith the policy to the respondent/complainant, in which, free look period of 15 days was granted for cancellation of the policy, which was not opted by the respondent/complainant. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

6.                Counsel for respondent/complainant has denied the allegations levelled by the appellants/Opposite Parties and submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties.

7.                After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

8.                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.  The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant took Life Long Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy No.LLG1230424 from the Opposite Parties w.e.f. 2006-2039 and sum assured was Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also the admitted fact that four annual premiums of Rs.25,000/- each i.e. totaling Rs.1,00,000/- was received by the Opposite Parties. According to the respondent/complainant, on receipt of the annual premium reminder dated 10.05.2010, realized that the Opposite Parties had increased the annual premium from the agreed sum of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.26,250/- being a unilateral increase of 05% for no rhyme or reasons explained by them. Therefore, the complainant decided not to pay further premiums to the Opposite Parties on account of the ambiguity in the future of the policy as also on account of sudden increase;, which was due on 29.04.2010. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 04.06.2010 , wherein, it was stated that her policy was now converted to Paid Up with sum assured being retained at the current level (Annexure C-9).  Even the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 29.04.2016 had informed the complainant that they would be deducting a sum of Rs.2834/- on account of various charges as also informed her that although she had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as total premium paid to the Opposite Parties, however, her total fund value had deteriorated to a menial sum of Rs.49,399.59/-. Therefore, the complainant sent written request dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure C-11) for refund of the amount clearly mentioning therein that she had never received the original policy documents from the Company. Not only this, the Opposite Parties despite receipt of the request letter dated 20.08.2016, failed to act thereon immediately and thereinafter sent another policy account statement dated 02.05.2017, wherein, they informed that they would be again deducting a sum of Rs.2956/- on account of various charges and the total fund value had deteriorated to a menial sum of Rs.48,629.49 only (Annexure C-12). It is also the admitted fact that the complainant received the amount of Rs.49,046/- on 09.06.2017 through CBS/NEFT in her account, after deduction of the amount of Rs.50,954/-.

9.                With regard to the objection taken by the appellants/Opposite Parties that the complaint was time barred as cause of action arisen, if any, was in the year 2006 and the complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2017 i.e. after a gap of more than 11 years, has no value at all because in the present case, cause of action accrued to the complainant on 29.04.2016, thereinafter on 20.08.2016 and finally on 09.06.2017 when the Opposite Parties refunded the partial amount to the complainant and the complaint was filed on 27.12.2017, which was very well within the limitation. As such, the objection raised by the appellants /Opposite Parties stands rejected.  

10.              With regard to the issue whether the policy documents alongwith terms and conditions was received by the respondent/complainant. Perusal of the impugned order as well as lower Court file shows that the Opposite Parties failed to place on record any document i.e. courier receipt or registered AD post etc., which could show that policy documents alongwith terms and conditions were received by the complainant. Not only this, the complainant at the time of filling up of Request Form for Payout of Policy had clearly written that “Policy not received from the Company.” Therefore, without receipt of terms and conditions and policy documents, how could the complainant know about free look period of 15 days. Even as per regulation 6(2) of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority mentioned in para No.9 of the impugned order, it is mandatory on the insurer to inform by letter while forwarding the policy that he/she has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents to review its terms and conditions and in the event of disagreement has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for objection and ask for refund. After perusal of the file, we find that the Forum while passing the impugned order rightly held in para No.12, which reads thus :-

“12.        After recording the aforesaid conclusion derived from the record and the pleading of the parties it is the own admitted case that till 30.4.2009, complainant had paid four premiums i.e. total amount of Rs.one lakh while on surrender amount of Rs.49,046/- only was disbursed to her and the remaining deposited amount of Rs.50,954/- has not been disbursed. It also appears to be inequitable that a person invests a sum of Rs.one lakh for more than 7-8 years and thereafter it is reduced to even less than 50% and moreover we have already referred that the one sided terms and conditions were not binding upon the complainant.  Our attention was also drawn to Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulation, 2010 and the relevant proviso to Rule 7 is reproduced below :-

                “Provided that where a policy is discontinued, only discontinuance charge may be levied by the insurer, and no other charges by whatsoever name called shall be levied. 

                Provided that no discontinuance charges shall be imposed on single premium policies and on top ups.”

So, the appellants failed to prove their case. Therefore, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

11.              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.

12.              Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

Pronounced.

05.04.2021                                                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb