STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Shashi Miglani, r/o H.No.1570, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.    Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 41-42, 2^nd  floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009, through its Branch Manager.

2.    Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Delphi-B-Wing, 2^nd  floor, Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076, through its Managing Director.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took “Tata AIG Life Mahalife Gold Policy(110NO29VO1)” vide policy No.C140757857, from the Opposite Parties, and paid a single premium of Rs.75,080/-, in the month of March, 2011. When the husband of the complainant, read the decision of this Commission, in the newspaper, he, immediately, read all the policy documents, and was shocked to know that the premium was to be paid, every year. The complainant, immediately, approached the Opposite Parties, with regard to the same, but they told her, to wait for 3 years,  to get the Net Assessed Value. The complainant gave written request, for cancellation of the Policy, but the Opposite Parties, refused to accept the same, on the ground, that the same had not been got cancelled,  within 15 days (free-look-period), of the receipt of the Policy documents.  It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs75,080/-, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of deposit, till realization; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-,  for mental agony and physical harassment; and pay Rs.5,500/-  as litigation expenses, was filed.

3.             Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the policy, in question, was purchased by the complainant. It was also admitted that a single premium of Rs.75,080/-, was paid by the complainant, at the time of purchase of the policy. It was denied that the said policy was a single premium policy. On the other hand, it was stated that the Policy alongwith all the relevant documents, was supplied to the complainant, and, she was well aware of  the terms and conditions thereof. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then she could make a request, for cancellation of the same, within  15 days (free-look-period), from the receipt of the Policy documents, but, she did not do so. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum,  held that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, but, on the other hand, it was the complainant, who defaulted in making payment of premiums, and, as such, her request for cancellation of the Policy after the expiry of a period of 15 days (free-look-period), from the date of receipt of the policy documents, was rightly not entertained by the Opposite Parties.

6.             Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

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

9.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that when the complainant, purchased the policy, in question, she was told, by the agent of the Opposite Parties, that it was a single premium policy. He further submitted that the complainant was also told, that she had to pay the premium only once, and after three years, she would get the requisite amount. He further submitted that when the policy documents were received, the same were kept in safe custody. After reading news, in the newspaper, regarding decision, in such a matter, by this Commission, when the terms and conditions of the policy were gone through by the husband of the complainant, it came to the knowledge of the complainant, that the premium was to be paid annually. He further submitted that, thus, the complainant was cheated. He further submitted that when the complainant, made a request to the Opposite Parties, for cancellation of the policy, in question, on coming to know that the premium was to be paid annually, for a specified term, they refused to cancel the same. He further submitted that, thus, there was deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, as also they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

10.           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, admittedly, the policy, in question, was purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that, as per the “Schedule of Benefits and Premiums”, attached with the Policy, the sum assured was Rs.8,39,000/-. The date of maturity of the policy was 22.03.2025, and the annual premium was Rs.74,252/-, which was to be paid, for a period of 15 years.  He further submitted that the proposal form was signed by the complainant, after going through the terms and conditions, contained therein. He further submitted that the policy was sent to the complainant, vide letter Annexure C-1 dated 23.03.2011, wherein, it was in clear-cut terms, stated that, in case, the terms and conditions thereof, were not acceptable to her, within 15 days of the receipt of the same, she could apply for cancellation of the same, and refund of premium, but she did not do so. He further submitted that, if, later on, the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy, the same could not be done. He further submitted that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the policy, in question, was purchased by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties. She signed the proposal form, after understanding the terms and conditions thereof. When the policy documents were sent, vide letter Annexure C-1 dated 23.03.2011, “Schedule of Benefits and Premiums”, was also attached therewith. According to this schedule, the sum assured was Rs.8,39,000/-, the date of maturity of the policy was 22.03.2025, and annual premium was Rs.74,252/-, which was to be paid, for a period of 15 years. The complainant, with eyes wide open, accepted the terms and conditions of the Policy. In the letter Annexure C-1, it was, in clear cut terms, stated that, in case, the terms and conditions of the Policy were not acceptable, to the complainant, then she could make a request, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, for cancellation of the same, and refund of the premium amount.  Instead of doing so, the complainant kept the policy document, in safe custody, and woke up from her deep slumber, much later, and requested the Opposite Parties, for cancellation of the same. Since the complainant did not exercise her right, for cancellation of the policy, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy documents, as per Annexure C-1, her request was rightly, later on, rejected by the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so.

12.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, after payment of only one annual premium, at the time of purchase of the Policy, the complainant became entitled, to any sum, under the Policy or not. It is evident, from the Policy document at page 21 of the District Forum file, that the policy could acquire “Guaranteed Surrender Value”, only if the premiums had been paid for atleast 3 consecutive years, by the life assured. As stated above, since only one premium was paid and, later on, the complainant did not pay any premium, the policy did not acquire “Guaranteed Surrender Value”. It is further evident, from page 23 of the District Forum file, that after payment of first premium, failure to pay subsequent premiums, on or before its due date, will constitute a default, in premium payment. A grace period of 31 days, from the due date, was to be allowed for payment of subsequent premiums. The policy was to remain, in force, during the period. If any premium remained unpaid, at the end of its grace period, the policy shall lapse, and have no further value, except, as may be provided under the non-forfeiture provisions. Under the heading “Non-Forfeiture Provisions” at page 24 of the District Forum file, if the life assured failed to pay the premium(s), within the grace period, after the Policy had acquired a cash value, he may elect one of the non-forfeiture options, by writing the Opposite Parties within 90 days, after the due date of the premium(s),  in default. In the instant case, even during the grace period, the remaining due premiums, were not paid by the complainant. The policy, therefore, lapsed and did not acquire “Guaranteed Surrender Value”. On this ground too, the complainant was not entitled to any amount of claim.

13.           The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

14.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties

15.           The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

17.           Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced

September 3, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg