BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                                                    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/218

  Date of filing :  09/09/2016                                                                                                

                                                        Date of Order:  16/11/2017

Mrs.  Rita Prasad,

W/o Mr. Raghvendra Prasad,

R/at : Flat No. 2703, ‘A’, 27^th Floor, Tower ‘A’,

Imperial Heights, Behind Goregaon Bust Depot,

Goregaon-Malad Link Road,

Near BEST Colony, Goregaon (West),

Mumbai – 400 104.                                           ….. Complainant.    

  V/s.

(1) The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,

      Address : 2^nd Floor, ‘A’ Wing,

      Modern Centre,

      (Central Bombay Infotech Park),

      Modern Mills Compound,

     Sane Gurujimarg,

     Near Agripada Police Station,

     Mahalaxmi (East),

     Mumbai – 400 011,

(2) The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,

      Regd Office Address : 2^nd Floor,

      Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg,

      New Delhi -  110001.

(3) Canara Bank,

      Address : Versova Branch, Versova,

      Seven Bungalows,

      Mumbai – 400 061.

(4) Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority,

     Address :- 3^rd Floor, Parisrama Bhavan,

     Basheer Bagh,

     Hyderabad – 500 004 (A.P.)       ….. Opposite Parties

                    Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod              :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap              :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance:  

For Complainant        –      Mr. Raghvendra Prasad

For Opponent Nos. 1 & 2  -         Adv. Shri Rajeshree Shinde

Adv. Smt. Reshma Mahadik

For Opponent No. 3            -        Adv. Shri. Rajkumar Shukla

                   Adv. Smt. Mugdha Sawant

Opponent No. 4          -        Ex-parte             

// JUDGMENT //

PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

                   The facts giving rise to the present complaint briefly stated as follows :-

                   It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant is a housewife and the Opponent Nos.  1 and 2 are Company carrying business of insurance and the Opponent No. 3 Canara Bank where she has SB Account alongwith her daughter Miss. Ruchita Prasad.  The Opponent No. 3 Bank and the representative of The Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited has brainwashed and persuaded her daughter to invest in a Single Premium Policy named Pension Plan Policy, where a single premium paid amount of Rs. 25,000/- would become double in a year’s time without any risk. Since a Public Sector Undertaking Bank like Canara Bank was having a tie up and promoting the insurance business of the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2,  the Complainant could not doubt the malafide intentions of the aforesaid officials who made her to sign the papers and issue the cheque No. 381821 dtd. 13/2/2007 for Rs. 25,000/- drawn on Canara Bank on Account of single and only premium payable against the said policy as told and explained by the officials.  The Provisional Receipt for the Proposal Deposit and payment of premium bearing No. CAN10009576 dtd. 13/2/2007 was issued by the Canara Bank and Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd.  jointly for Rs. 75,000/- which included premium of Rs. 50,000/- only paid by her daughter Miss. Ruchitha Prasad towards the premium of the policy taken the same day by her for herself is marked at Annexure ‘A’.  In March 2008, it is   informed by the Opponent No. 3  Bank that there was no more associated with Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited.  The Complainant informed to the representative of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. in Mumbai that she had not received the policy bond which they promised to send after locating the same but she did not receive the policy bond despite  her repeated requests.  The Complainant requested to her husband  Mr. Raghvendra Prasad, who stays in Bangalore.  He approached the Customer Care of the Bangalore Branch of the Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. several times, then she got ‘The Duplicate Policy Bond’ with a new number RPG2236465 (Old No. RPG1465409) on 28/11/2008 with their letter dtd. 20/11/2008. The copy of the policy is marked at Annexure ‘B’ and the letter is marked at Annexure ‘C’.  As per law, it is mandatory and also under obligation to the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure safe delivery of the Original Policy Bond within a specific period ranging between 30 to 60 days from the date of signing of the proposal form and payment of the premium but in her case the Opponent failed to deliver the Original Policy Bond and only Duplicate Policy Bond with a changed new number was delivered after 1 year and 9 months and therefore, from the conduct of the Opponents, it appears that the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 cheated her.  She sent a letter dtd. 10/12/2008 and exercised her ‘Right To Reconsider’ to cancel the Policy and refund Premium amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the  letter is at Annexure ‘D’.  The Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 did not  reply to her letter.  After several requests, when she received letter dtd. 27/2/2009 on  7/9/2009 rejecting her request on untenable grounds and offering to convert the said Policy into a single premium policy. She has also approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who did not entertain her complaint which is at Annexure ‘M’ on the ground that it is beyond his purview.  She has also lodged complaint with the Chairman, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad for her grievance, which is at Annexure ‘O’ but no reply was received and therefore, she has filed this complaint for refund full premium amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. on compound basis from the date of encashment  of premium cheque dtd. 13/2/2007 as also, suitable compensation for mental harassment and trauma alongwith  costs etc..  

 The Complainant also filed list of documents, affidavit evidence and written arguments.

(2)              To rebut the allegations of the complaint, the  Opponent Nos. 1 and 2  filed its written statement  and denied all the contents in toto.  It is further contended that the policy holder, who was at liberty and obligation to go through the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents and the Complainant did  raise any complaints or objections regarding the policy either within the Free Look period of 15 days or within any reasonable time thereafter and therefore, the contract of insurance attained finality and the Opponents have been continuing to provide the coverage to the Complainant. After the expiry of the Free Look Period, the policy  terms and conditions permit the surrender of the policy only after completion of three years; where surrender value as payable in accordance with the policy terms and conditions shall be payable on surrender of the Policy.  It is further contended that the said policy was due for premium for the term of 2008, and the Complainant failed to pay the premiums under the said policies, the status of the said policies was changed to Early Lapse on 23/3/2008 and the early lapse occurs when the Complainant discontinued the premium payment within 36 months from the date of commencement and grace period was also gets over.  In such a state, risk cover alongwith rider benefit ceases and at the date of notification of the death of insured only Fund value is payable.  Policy holder may reinstate the policy within a period of two years from the due date of the first unpaid installment of Regular Premium (as per product terms and conditions).  On the request of the Complainant, the Opponent sent a duplicate copy of the policy document however, due to system error, the Policy Number had to be changed for the issuance of the duplicate policy bond without changing any terms of the contract.  The amount of Rs. 25,000/- was required to convert the said pension policies into single premium policy in pension plan. 

                   The Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 also filed their evidence affidavit.

(3)              The Opponent No. 3 appeared and filed their written statement and denied all the contents that it is not a service provider or it has no concern with the insurance policy and therefore, the case is not made out against the Opponent No. 3 and the case be dismissed against the Opponent No. 3.

                   The Opponent No. 3 also filed their evidence affidavit.

(4)              As the Opponent No. 4 is absent, the ex-parte order is passed against the Opponent No.  4.

(5)              From the  above facts and circumstances, as also from the complaint, written statement, documents, evidence affidavit, written arguments and oral arguments by the parties, the  following points arouse for my consideration.

REASONING:
(6)                        From the above facts it appears that the Complainant has obtained the policy from the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2, this fact is also admitted by the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2, for which, the  premium was paid by the Complainant.  The Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 also admitted that due to the clerical mistake, the changed Number policy was issued to the Complainant. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2  has not produced any document to show that the original policy documents was  delivered to the Complainant and therefore, we found that there is a deficiency  in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2.  Hence, we answered the point Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative. Since there is no sufficient evidence on record against the Opponent Nos. 3 and 4, no orders are passed against the Opponent Nos. 3 and 4.  It is pertinent to note that the Complainant was remained absent on several dates and therefore, my Ld. Predecessor dismissed the case for want of prosecution on 10/5/2013 and this order was challenged by the Complainant before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission set aside the dismissal order on 06/09/2013. On the point of delay, our Ld. Predecessor has already admitted this case and therefore, we have not given any findings on that point.

(7)              Considering the above facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass the fooling order :-

//O R D E R//

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint  i.e. 09/09/2016 till its realization to the Complainant.  
3. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally  also shall pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost to  the Complainant.    
4.  The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 to comply the aforesaid order within a  period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. No order as against the Opponent Nos. 3 & 4.
6. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

sd/-xxx                                                 sd/xxx

        (Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                 (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

 Hon’ble  Member                                    Hon’ble President

Note:-  As the pleadings, affidavit, documents of the parties are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.

vns        

BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                                                    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/218

  Date of filing :  09/09/2016                                                                                                

                                                        Date of Order:  16/11/2017

Mrs.  Rita Prasad,

W/o Mr. Raghvendra Prasad,

R/at : Flat No. 2703, ‘A’, 27^th Floor, Tower ‘A’,

Imperial Heights, Behind Goregaon Bust Depot,

Goregaon-Malad Link Road,

Near BEST Colony, Goregaon (West),

Mumbai – 400 104.                                           ….. Complainant.    

  V/s.

(1) The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,

      Address : 2^nd Floor, ‘A’ Wing,

      Modern Centre,

      (Central Bombay Infotech Park),

      Modern Mills Compound,

     Sane Gurujimarg,

     Near Agripada Police Station,

     Mahalaxmi (East),

     Mumbai – 400 011,

(2) The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,

      Regd Office Address : 2^nd Floor,

      Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg,

      New Delhi -  110001.

(3) Canara Bank,

      Address : Versova Branch, Versova,

      Seven Bungalows,

      Mumbai – 400 061.

(4) Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority,

     Address :- 3^rd Floor, Parisrama Bhavan,

     Basheer Bagh,

     Hyderabad – 500 004 (A.P.)       ….. Opposite Parties

                    Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod              :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap              :   Hon’ble Member

// CORRECTED OPERATIVE ORDER //

                   It is to be noted that in both the cases (CC/218/2016 & CC/219/2016)  the original date of filing of the complaint is 10/4/2012 . Due to typographical mistake , it is stated as  9/9/2016, therefore, the correction should be required and accordingly to that effect the necessary changes in the  operative order is required to be passed by correcting specifically, the operative part of the Order clause (2) instead of 9/9/2016, it should be read as 10/4/2012.  Therefore, the following operative order should  be read in both the complaints.   

                   //O R D E R//

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint  i.e. 10/04/2012 till its realization to the Complainant.  
3. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally  also shall pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost to  the Complainant.    
4.  The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 to comply the aforesaid order within a  period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. No order as against the Opponent Nos. 3 & 4.
6. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

        (Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                 (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

       Hon’ble  Member                                    Hon’ble President

Date – 04/12/2017

vns