THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.211/2012
Dated this the 6th day of June 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By L.Jyothikumar, Member:
The petition was filed on 14.05.2012. The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased Life Long Unit linked Insurance policy issued by the Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Complainant paid first premium amount of Rs.30,000/- on 31.12.2006. At the time of purchasing the policy it was informed that the fund can be redeemed after 3 years without any charges as the lock in period for the fund is 3 years. When the complainant approached the opposite parties to redeem the insurance policy after 3 years, the opposite parties informed her that the policy is not redeemable after 3 years and only surrender of the policy is possible. At the time of endorsing the proposal form of the policy the representative of the Insurance Company had not explained to her the details of the policy and the charges to be effected at the time of redeeming the policy without her knowledge and permission opposite parties have opted for life long Unit linked policy. Complainant alleges that the amount collected by the opposite parties are illegal. The complaint is filed to return the deposited amount. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint seeking relief. In pursuance of the notice issued by the forum both opposite parties had appeared and filed their version denying the allegation in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted.
Opposite parties content that the liability under the policy is subject to the terms and conditions of the limitations in the policy. Opposite parties submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the policy holder can surrender the policy within 15 days if she is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. But the complainant has not raised any objection regarding the policy. Opposite party further submits that the complainant was convinced fully about the scheme and its details before executing the proposal form. The last date of the premium payment was fixed as 31.12.2059. The opposite parties have not violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy. There was absolutely no compulsion on the part of the opposite parties on the complainant to join the policy. The complainant had discontinued the same after remitting three installments of premium. The complainant is eligible to claim only the surrender value of the policy as per the terms and conditions applicable to the policy. There is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- If so what is the relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ext.A1 to A4 on the side of complainant and B1 and B6 on the side of opposite parties.
Issue No.1 to 3
Admittedly complainant was a subscriber of Life Long Unit Linked Fund Scheme Policy. Rs.30,000/- per annum is the premium and the terms of scheme is 53 years. The policy has the coverage of Life Insurance, the tenure is for 31.12.2059. The case of the complainant is that she was informed that no reduction would be made in the fund value after a period of 3 years. She had remitted 3 years premium and thereafter she wish to surrender the policy. When enquiry was made opposite party informed her that the amount which would be credited to her account after deduction of the statutory charges will be Rs.45000/- No condition was mentioned regarding the reduced amount on surrender. The terms and conditions are covered by the IRD Regulation and the opposite parties are liable to pay the surrender value on a reduced amount. In this context, we have to point out that the policy details are not informed by the opposite party to the complainant properly or the paid up fund value was not informed properly to the complainant on initiation of the policy. It is a grave dereliction on the part of opposite parties , is not informing of the policy terms and conditions to the complainant which we feel that opposite parties shall be ordered to pay the entire amount Rs.90,000/- paid to the complainant without any sort of deduction eligible or not. Opposite parties have to suffer the probable loss of such benefit out of deduction since there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence the issue No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed and directing the opposite parties to pay back the amount of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees Ninety thousand only) to the complainant without any sort of deduction and also entitled for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only)as cost of this litigations. Comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to get an interest @ 12% from the date filing of the complaint till the date of payment.
Pronounced in the open court this the 6th day of June 2014.
Date of filing:14.05.2012.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Policy schedule document issued by the opposite party
A2. First premium receipt issued by opposite party dtd.31.12.2006.
A3. Policy account statement WLG1420922 as on 30.12.2007.
A4.Policy premium details issued by the opposite party to the complainant
dtd.23.11.2012.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Special Power of Attorney dtd.01.08.2012.
B2.Proposal form issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.26.12.2006
B3. Key feature document of the policy issued by the opposite party
B4. Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party interested to continue the
Policy.
B5. Policy schedule issued by the opposite party
B6.Terms and conditions of the policy.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Shyni( complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
