BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mrs.Harjinder Kaur, resident of H.No.3019/2, Sector 44, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.    The Associate Director Operations, AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.180-182, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2.    The Managing Director, AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., 5th floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon – Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 Haryana (India).

                                         ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                   PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh.J.R.Syal, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for the OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant took an insurance policy bearing No.LLG1239653 under plan “Life Long Unit Linked” from the OPs, for sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-, which commenced from 01.06.2006. The annual premium to be paid was Rs.25,000/- and the allocation rate as per the policy schedule was 101%.  It has further been stated that as per the policy accounts statement dated 7.1.2011, an amount of Rs.1,38,142/- was shown to be in her credit. As per the illustration “Benefits of Policy”, the gross investment return has been shown to be 10%. The complainant already deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in five installments and as such was entitled for a sum of Rs.1,37,500/- after policy duration of five years. However, when the complainant approached the OPs for maturity benefits after 5 years, they told her that she was entitled to Rs.81,000/- only. A legal notice dated 25.7.2010 was sent to OPs, which they replied. Hence, this complaint.

2]           OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply, wherein, they took the preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability, territorial jurisdiction and that the complaint is time barred. On merits, the issuance of policy in question has been admitted.  It is stated that complainant filled & signed the proposal form after going through its key feature as well as all other terms & conditions.  She paid the premium for 5 years only, but did not pay further premiums on due dates. It has been further pleaded that the details of the policy was being sent regularly to the complainant and she was well aware of the specifications & implications of the policy, so if she was dissatisfied with the policy terms & conditions, she had the right to cancel the policy within Free Look Period i.e. 15 days from the receipt of the policy, but she did not exercise this option. The policy is a Unit Linked Policy, subject to market risks. The OPs never provided any assurance or guarantee about the returns of the funds. It has been denied that the complainant was informed that she can get the policy surrendered after 5 years, but her demand for refund of the entire premium along with the claimed interest/growth cannot be granted. It has been further pleaded that in case the complainant chooses to surrender the policy, she is entitled to the surrender value only, subject to terms & conditions of policy. It has been further pleaded that the policy became “Paid Up” on 1.7.2011 due to non payment of renewal premium. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           The ld.Counsel for OPs Sh.Arun Dogra, Advocate, has raised an objection that this Forum at Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this complaint, as no cause of action has accrued at Chandigarh, as is clear from documents on record.  

6]           The proposal form, placed on record by the OPs, duly filled-up and signed by the complainant as Ann.R-1, clearly shows that it has been filled-up & singed at Mohali. The Branch Address, as mentioned in the Proposal Form, is “CBOP, Phase-7 Mohali”.  The “Place” in Ann.R-1 has also been mentioned as “Mohali”.  More so, the payment has also been made at Mohali as is clear from first page of the Proposal Form (Ann.R-1) wherein it is mentioned that Cheque No.336239, dated 22.5.2006 amounting to Rs.25,000/- is drawn on CBOP, PH-7, Mohali.

7]           The averment as made in Para No.13 of the complaint to the effect that complainant availed the services of OPs by taking insurance Policy in question from OP-1 through their Adviser at Chandigarh, is totally a bald assertion.  The complainant has not placed on record any proof or document on the file to prove this fact.  Thus, we are of the view that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant under the jurisdiction of this Forum at Chandigarh.  Hence, the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for OPs is sustainable and fully justified.  Merely, by having a Branch Office of OPs, at Chandigarh, where no cause of action has arisen, would not confer any jurisdiction in favour of the complainant to file the complaint before this forum.  Reliance has been placed on M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (SC) 2010 (1) RCR Civil (1).   

8]           In view of the foregoings, we are of the firm opinion that this Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  Therefore, this complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  The complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.