Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/112

Shri Gautam Bhowmik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Aviva Life Inssurance Company India Ltd. and others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Mr.M.Dey.

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

  
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 112 of 2013

    Sri Goutam Bhowmik,
S/O- Sri Parimal Bhowmik,
Dhaleswar Road No.6,
Agartala, West Tripura.            ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

            
1. The Branch Manager,
Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. 
Hariganga Basak Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Director,
Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd.,
Aviva Tower, Sector Road, 
Opp. Golf Course, DLF- Phase V, Sector-43,
Gurgaon, Haryana
PIN- 122003.               ..….. Opposite Parties.        

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Mr. Basudev Chakraborty,
                  Mr. Surajit Bhattacharya and
                  Mr. Manik Dey,
                   Advocates.
                       
For the Opposite Parties    : Mr. Saikat Saha,
  Mr. Sagar Banik and 
  Smt. Jayasree Bhusan,
  Advocates.
                  
                
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 22.06.15

JU D G M E N T     
        
        This is an application U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act) filed by the complainant, Goutam Bhowmik of Dhaleswar Road No.6, Agartala, West Tripura against O.Ps, namely the Branch Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd., Agartala Branch, West Tripura and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had taken an Insurance policy No. ALN 2055822 under the product name 'Aviva Life Line' for the sum assured Rs.2,25,000/- with annual premium of Rs.15,000/-. Date of commencement of the policy was 25.06.2008 and the date of maturity was 25.08.2017. As per characteristics of the said policy,  the investment risk in the investment Port folio was to be borne by the policy holder. Though the complainant paid the first premium of Rs.15000/-, yet he did not receive the policy documents. He was informed by the O.P. Insurance Company that there was some technical problems for which the policy documents with certificate could not be printed out. By this time, he paid premiums for 5 years consecutively. Ultimately he received the policy documents with certificate. Having received the policy documents, it was found that the policy was issued under the product name, 'Aviva Life Line', though he proposed to purchase the policy under the product name, 'Aviva Life Bond Five'. It is averred that the he was in need of money to meet the expenses of the treatment of his octogenarian father who was suffering from cancer. So he wanted to surrender the policy to enable him to get the money back so deposited under the said policy as per market index. At that point of time, he came to know that the original policy bearing No- ALN 2055822 had been cancelled and a new policy bearing No- ALN 2119756 was issued in his favour. Immediately he lodged a complaint with the O.P. Insurance company for cancellation of the previous policy as it was done without obtaining his prior consent.  For this, he was being deprived of from getting the surrender value of the policy as per market index. He made several correspondence  with the O.P. Insurance company expressing his grievances but all to no avail. According to the complainant, the action of the O.P. Insurance company attracted unfair trade practice within the meaning of C.P. Act. and hence, he is liable to be duly compensated by the O.P. Insurance Company.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.P. Insurance Company, stating, interalia, that having received a request dated 14.07.2008 from the complainant that he did not receive the copy of his policy documents for the policy No. ALN 205822, the company cancelled the said policy from inception and a new policy bearing No- ALN 2119756 was issued and the same was dispatched on 12.08.08 to the policy holder by speed post. Both the policies were same just the policy number was changed. While sending the new policy, the complainant was informed that he could surrender the policy documents with indemnity bond in case of loss of original policy documents. It is averred that the complainant was also informed that the policy in question was a 'Unit Linked Insurance Policy' which provided insurance coverage and also acted as an investment and hence the performance of the fund depends upon the market condition and daily fluctuation of  NAV. As per terms of the policy the complainant could have submitted cancellation request within the statutory limit of 15 days if he had reason to believe that he was mis-communicated about the benefits of the policy. Since the complainant sought to surrender the policy beyond the ''Free look period'' of 15 days, his prayer could not be accepted and the premiums deposited by him could not be refunded as per terms of policy of insurance. It is denied that they adopted any unfair trade practice in any manner whatsoever. 

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1 Series- Letters dated 30.07.13, 24.07.13, 23.07.13, 22.07.13, 18.07.13, 31,07.13 and another letter dated 30.07.13,
    Exhibit 2- policy of Insurance.

5.        No evidence either primary or secondary has been adduced on behalf of the O.Ps.
        FINDINGS:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
        (i) Whether the O.P. Insurance company did any wrong by issuing new policy under different product name in cancellation of the previous policy without prior consent of the complainant;
        (ii) Whether the action of the O.P. Insurance Company constituted unfair trade practice.

7.         We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, evidence adduced by the complainant and the memorandum of written argument filed by the complainant meticulously. 

8.        The case of the complainant revolves around 2 points. Firstly, the complainant subscribed to 'Aviva Life Bond Five' policy but the policy issued was under the product name of 'Aviva Life Line'. Secondly, the original policy bearing No- ALN 2055822 was cancelled and a new policy bearing No- ALN 2119756 was issued without obtaining his prior consent and thereby deprived him of getting the surrender value of the policy within the specified time limit which, according to him, attracted 'unfair trade practice' as defined in the C.P. Act. 

9.        On the other hand, the O.P. Insurance company controverted the plea of the complainant by asserting that upon receipt of a request on 14.07.08 from the complainant that he did not receive the copy of policy documents for the previous policy, they being a customer centric company cancelled the previous policy from inception and issued a new policy. The terms and conditions of both the policies were same. Only the policy number was changed. Further that, as per terms of the policy documents, the complainant could have cancelled the policy within 15 days of receipt of the enclosed policy documents in case he disagreed with any of its terms and conditions. In such a situation, the complainant can not be allowed to surrender his policy to get back the premiums deposited by him under the policy as the request for the same was made beyond 'free look period' of 15 days in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

10.         The admitted position is that the O.P. Insurance company had issued the policy under product name, 'Aviva Life Line', in favour of the complainant basing on the proposal form dated 11.06.08 filled up by the complainant for a sum assured Rs.2,25,000/- with premium of Rs.15, 000/- proposed to be paid annually for a term of 10 years. He paid total premiums of Rs.75,000/-  against the said policy. 

11.         It is the allegation of the complainant that though he opted for the product, 'Aviva Life Bond Five' policy, yet the O.P. Insurance company wrongly issued a policy under the product name, 'Aviva Life Line', without his prior consent. On verification of the proposal form signed by the complainant and other related documents nowhere it is found that he opted for the product, 'Aviva Life Bond Five'. On our query, the learned counsel for the complainant failed to satisfy us on whether there was any basic difference between the terms and conditions of the products, namely 'Aviva Life Bond Five' and 'Aviva Life Line'. It is not at all understandable to us as to how  the complainant suffered loss for issuing a new policy with different number giving effect from the date of inception of the original policy on 25.06.08 when the terms and conditions of both the policies are same.
        
12.        It is also alleged by the complainant that the fact of cancellation of the original policy was not communicated to him in time, for which he was deprived of surrendering the policy within the specified time and getting back the surrender value as per market index. Assuming that the complainant disagreed with the cancellation of the previous policy and issuance of subsequent new policy, in that event also he had the opportunity to cancel the request within 'free look period of 15 days' as per terms of the policy documents. There is nothing on record to suggest that he made any attempt to opt out of the new policy within the time limit.

13.        It appears that, as per policy documents, the policy issued in favour of the complainant was under 'Unit Linked Plan', in which the investment  risk in the investment Port folio was to be borne by the investor. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P. Insurance company that the policy in question was 'Unit Linked Policy' and such policy was speculative in nature and the same was taken for investment purpose and hence the policy holder of such policy is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment dated 23rd April, 2013 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer disputes Redressasl Commission in Revision Petition No- 658 of 2012(Ramlal Aggarwalla Vrs. Bajaj Allianz life Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 others).

14.        There is no manner of dispute that the policy in question being 'Unit Linked Policy' is dependent on the market volatility  and the value of the policy may go up or may come down depending upon the market condition. So relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission as referred to above, we are of the view that the money of the complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.  

15.        As it appears, the complainant intended to surrender the policy to get back the money prematurely deposited by him by way of premiums. We have already pointed out that the learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us any provision containing in the terms and conditions of the policy documents for premature refund of money deposited as premiums on expiry of the free look period of 15 days.

16.        It is seen that the date of commencement of the policy was 25.06.2008 and the case was filed by the complainant before this Forum on 10.12.13. No where in the pleadings it has been mentioned when the cause of action for filing the case arose. The reason is best known to the complainant.  

17.        For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the complainant has failed to establish by adducing cogent and consistent evidence that the O.P. Insurance Company was guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.

18.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the 19.Act filed by the complainant stands dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.
 
       
19.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.