STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 314 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.07.2013 |
Date of Decision | | 16.09.2013 |
Saroop Singh, House No.1, Village Bhabaat, Tehsil Derabassi, Zirakpur, Punjab.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1] The Aviva Life Insurance Company India Private Limited, Head Office Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite Gold Course, DLF, Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122003, through its Managing Director/CEO.
2] The Aviva Life Insurance Company India Private Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
3] Urvashi, Advisor Number Y0760622 C/o The Aviva Life Insurance Company India Private Limited, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Anish Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2013, 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, who is a farmer/agriculturist and an illiterate person, visited the Bank of Punjab Limited, Sector 32 Branch, Chandigarh where he was approached by Opposite Party No.3, Advisor of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (Insurance Company), through Branch Manager of the Bank. It was stated that Opposite Party No.3 sold two policies (Annexures C-1 and C-2) to the complainant by narrating that these were F.D.Rs, and he was not required to pay anything afterwards, rather, he would get a better rate of interest. It was further stated that the complainant, being an illiterate person, did not know English but had learnt how to sign in English as he remained a member of the Panchayat. It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- against each FDR, to Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that, at the time of receiving the payment, neither any receipt of the amount nor the terms and conditions of the Policies, were handed over to the complainant by Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that despite completion of all the formalities, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the certificate of document within time. It was further stated that the complainant made a number of requests to Opposite Party No.3, regarding the FDR certificates, but every time, it was assured that the same would be delivered through courier, at his home address.
3. It was further stated that uptill 23.06.2009, on receiving no document from the Opposite Parties, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.3 where he met Opposite Party No.2, and requested to cancel the policies as the terms and conditions thereof were not disclosed to him and the Policies were issued narrating them to be the FDRs. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 gave assurance that the entire amount would be refunded to the complainant with interest at the earliest and an application, to this effect, was also submitted to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that in the last week of December, 2010, the complainant received a cheque bearing No.941055 dated 19.10.2010 in the sum of Rs.11,407/- (Annexure C-10), without any detail thereof. It was further stated that in the month of January 2011, the complainant again approached the Opposite Parties for providing him the details of the said cheque amount but no details were furnished. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties again assured that they would be refunding the entire money with interest and the cheque amount of Rs.11,407/- was only interest part of one policy bearing No.LSP1703665. It was further stated that the complainant never presented the said cheque for encashment. It was further stated that the complainant visited Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, a number of times and again submitted a letter for refund on 3.7.2012 but no heed was paid to his request. It was further stated that the complainant was misrepresented by the Opposite Parties, and Opposite Party No.3 filled the proposal form as per her own wish and did not disclose the true contents thereof to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, failed to settle his claim by refunding the invested amount with interest. It was further 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), seeking direction to the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.50,000/- each for two policies alongwith interest @18% per annum; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Policies in question. It was stated that the Policies, in question, were issued to the complainant as proposed by him. It was further stated that the complainant continued to enjoy the benefit of the Policies, for a period of three years till the time the same were to foreclose on account of non payment of premium for two years. It was further stated that the Policy terms were duly delivered to the complainant and he had paid one premium also and wanted to retract from the Policies, to claim the amount back. It was further stated that the proposal forms were received by the Opposite Parties, which were duly filled and signed by the complainant after going through the “Key Feature Document”. It was further stated that the Policies were auto foreclosed as per the terms and conditions and since the complainant failed to pay the subsequent premiums, the Policies had lapsed. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied with the Policies, he could have applied for the cancellation of the same within the free look period of 15 days, from the receipt of the same, but he did not chose to do so. It was further stated that the complainant was also requested to deposit the annual premiums. It was further stated that the Policies were delivered to the complainant in the year 2007, and the complaint in respect of the same was being raised in the year 2012. It was further stated that the issuance of the cheque was a matter of record. It was denied that the complainant was informed at any stage that the full premium shall be refunded to him. It was further stated that no person would pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac, as the complainant did, without understanding as to for what purpose the same was being paid. It was further stated that if there was any discrepancy in the Policies, the same should have been pointed out by the complainant at once and not after 5 years. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Though Opposite Party No.3 was served, but nobody appeared on her behalf, before the District Forum, and as such, she was proceeded against exparte by the District Forum vide order dated 11.02.2013.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised 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. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that two Insurance Policies (Annexures C-1 and C-2), taken by him, were received by him on 12.08.2009 and 29.08.2009 is not correct. The Policies, (Policy Nos.LSP1703665 and 1734139) in fact, were sent vide letters dated 09.10.2007 and 31.10.2007 respectively, as is evident from the forwarding letters of the Policies. In both the Policies, there was a stipulation to the effect that
“You have the right to reconsider your decision to purchase the Policy within 15 days of receipt of the enclosed Policy Document in case you disagree with any of its terms and conditions. Please refer to the enclosed “Your Right to Reconsider” notice.”
The appellant/complainant did not produce any cogent evidence, in support of his contention, that the Policies were received by him after the lapse of around two years. Perusal of contents of following documents clearly reveals that the same did not pertain to the two polices regarding which the appellant/complainant filed the complaint in the instant case:
Sr.No. | Exhibit | Letter dated | Policy No.to which pertained |
1. | C-3 | 23.06.2009 | RPG1815724 |
2. | C-4 | 05.08.2009 | RPG1815724 |
3. | C-5 | 04.08.2009 | RPG1815724 |
4. | C-6 | 14.10.2009 | RPG1815724 |
5. | C-8 | 11.08.2009 | RPG1815724 |
Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written statement submitted that the appellant/complainant was having the following four Insurance Policies and, therefore, he was well aware of what he was applying for and where the money was being put:-
Sr. No. | Policy No. | Date and time of Issue. |
1. | RPG1815724 | 03/01/2008 12:00:00 AM |
2. | RPG1756658 | 20/11/2007 12:00:00 AM |
3. | LSP1703665 | 29/09/2007 12:00:00 AM |
4. | RPG1734139 | 27/10/2007 12:00:00 AM |
The documents exhibit C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-8 pertain to policy at Sr.No.1 above, which is not the subject matter of the instant case.
10. At the time of issuance of the Policies, the appellant/complainant was provided with Policy Schedule and standard terms and conditions alongwith other documents. Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in the letter dated 28.12.2009 (Annexure C-9), informed the complainant that no request for cancellation and raising any concern about the policies, was received from the appellant/complainant, within the free look period of 15 days.
11. The respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (Insurer) in Para No.7 of Annexure C-12, again informed the appellant/complainant as under:-
“7. We would like to confirm that all the customers are provided with a “your right to reconsider” option (Free look Period), wherein the customer if dissatisfied with the policy terms and conditions of the benefits available under it, is entitled, to bring it to the notice of the Company and request for cancellation of the Policy within 15 days of receipt of the Policy. As per our records, the policy documents have been dispatched to your communication address available with us However, we did not receive any intimation from your end highlighting concerns in the policy during this period.
12. The appellant/complainant had paid only one premium. The surrender clause from the respective policies is extracted below:
Policy No.LSP1703665
“5) Surrender Value
a) From the commencement of the Fourth Policy Year, the Policy will acquire a Surrender Value if the Regular Premium due for the first Policy Year has been received. The Surrender Value shall be equal to:……….”
Policy No.RPG1734139
Article 8 Surrender Value
(1) If the premium frequency mentioned in the policy is other than Single Premium, then:
(a) After the commencement of Fourth Policy Year and subject to the payment of regular premium due in the first two Policy Years, the Policy Holder shall, upon the termination of this policy for any reason (other than the death of the insured), be entitled to a surrender calculated as follows:……………”
Only one premium each was paid in both the policies. Since Policy No.LSP1703665, acquired surrender value upon payment of single premium, a sum of Rs.11,407/- was refunded to the appellant/complainant vide cheque bearing No.941055 dated 19.10.2010. In respect of Policy No.RPG1734139, surrender value could accrue on payment of two premiums. Since only one premium was paid, no surrender value accrued.
13. The argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant that the policies were not issued to him and that the premium paid was in the shape of FDRs is concocted and afterthought. Even a layman knows that whenever amount is invested in the FDR, one gets the FDR instantly. The contention that the appellant/complainant did not receive the Policies gets belied from Annexures C-1 and C-2 because the forwarding letters of these Policies are dated 9.10.2007 and 31.10.2007. Even the Policy Account Statement, Premium Notice/Reminder and Policy Lapse Letter were sent to the appellant/complainant, as detailed in the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
14. The appellant/complainant could not refute the claim of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 regarding sending of Policy Account Statement, Premium Notice/Reminder and Policy Lapse Letter. The appellant/complainant, thus, failed to establish that there was misrepresentation on the part of the Opposite Parties, in selling the Policies, in question, to him. The contention of the appellant/complainant that he was an illiterate person and could only sign in English, and was made to sign on the proposal forms, by Opposite Party No.3, without going through the contents thereof, also cannot be accepted simply on the ground that nobody would invest such a huge amount of Rs.1 Lac, in such a casual manner, at the instance of others. Therefore, the averment regarding the complainant of being duped by misrepresentation by the Opposite Parties, seemed to be a concocted story, just to claim the refund of the premium amount paid against the Policies. The District Forum rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, (2010) 1 SCC 83, wherein it was held that “In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.”
15. 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.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel or the parties.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that 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.
18. 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.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
16th September 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.314 of 2013)
Argued by: Sh. Anish Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated the day of September, 2013
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been upheld.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
