Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/184/2017

Devender Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	184 of 2017
Date of Institution	12.07.2017
Date of Decision	30.01.2018

 

Devendra Kumar Goel (09417839931), # 78 Sky Net Enclave, Loahgarh Patiyala Road, Zirakpur (Mohali), Punjab.

                           …..Appellant/Complainant.

                           Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, SCO 45-46-47, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh (UT).
2. HDFC Bank Ltd. (through Chief Manager), formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., SCF 69/70, Phase 3B2, Mohali (Punjab) 160058.

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Devendra Kumar Goel, appellant in person.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 and proxy Counsel for Sh.Sunil Narang, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                               

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.06.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing no.229 of 2017 filed by the complainant (now appellant) qua Opposite Party No.1 only with the following directions :-

“11.   In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

 

[a]  To issue a fresh statement of accounts to the Complainant by reversing all the charges, with cumulative effect, which are not leviable/ chargeable and are not piece & parcel of the Policy, and to pay the same to the Complainant;  

 

[b]  To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

12.    The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions as in sub-para [c] above.”  

 

2.           The facts, in brief, are that in the year 2006, on the asking of the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Limited (Opposite Party No.2) formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab, the complainant took one policy of Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Limited, on quarterly payments of Rs.12,500/- through ECS. It was stated that after taking the said policy, the market condition was not good till 2012 and it showed a positive impact only in 2014. It was further stated that in August, 2014, while comparing the ULIP viz-a-viz the payments made, the complainant noticed that the value was almost equal, whereas, the market had moved three times. It was averred that the premium had been increased twice without any information and confirmation, from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.13,125/- and from Rs.13,125/- to Rs.13,781/-. It was further averred that the ECS clearance permission was given to Centurion Bank of Punjab, which was thereafter merged in HDFC Bank and the said bank had changed the ECS amount twice, without information to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant made objections with regard to deduction of mortality charges, bid offer charges and purchase sell spread charges, which were not the part of the Policy and a written complaint to this effect was also made on 05.08.2014, in response to which, Opposite Party No.1 confirmed that all the charges were as per the Policy and were offered to return the extra amount with a loss to complainant’s account due to indexation. Failing to get any positive response, the complainant also filed a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged 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 (in short the “Act” only), was filed.

3.           In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1, stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, on the same cause of action and the said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2015. Thereafter, the complainant has not challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court and the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman became final. Therefore, the present complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable. It was stated that on the basis of proposal form and declaration made, a Policy bearing No.NLG1206092 was issued in the name of complainant, commencing from 06.02.2006, for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-, and regular quarterly premium of Rs.12,500/- was to be paid till 06.02.2052. As such, till date, the complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.4,46,343/-. It was further stated that on 18.09.2014, the complainant requested for partial withdrawal, which was duly acknowledged and processed by the replying Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.3,94,078/- was transferred in his Bank Account through NEFT (Annexure R-1/E). It was pleaded that due to partial withdrawal, the sum assured in the Policy was reduced to Rs.1,56,922/-. It was further pleaded that in the meantime, the replying Opposite Party was in receipt of complaints from the complainant regarding the charges incurred on his Policy. As such, the matter was got investigated, vide e-mail dated 13.08.2013, it was clarified to the complainant that on account of some technical error the premium got increased due to activation of indexation in the Policy, which resulted in increase of sum assured from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.5,51,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant was requested to give his confirmation if he wanted to terminate the indexation from the Policy and for refund of extra premium deducted in furtherance of the same (Annexure R-1/F). The complainant sent various emails on 20.08.2014, 20.09.2014 and 12.10.2014 to the replying Opposite Party, wherein, he complained of deduction of extra charges and charging of premium on indexation amount and the said emails were duly replied vide emails dated 21.08.2014, 10.10.2014 and 20.10.2014. Nonetheless, the complainant vide his email dated 21.10.2014 requested the replying Opposite Party not to process the refund of excess indexation amount (Annexure R-1/G colly). In the meantime, due to non-payment of regular premium, the Policy was converted into paid up insurance on 07.12.2014 and within six months from said date, the complainant had the option to reinstate the Policy, subject to policy terms and conditions. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.         

4.           In its reply, Opposite Party No.2 pleaded that as per the instructions of the complainant, the payment was released through ECS. It was denied that the replying Opposite Party had changed the ECS amount twice without information to the complainant. It was stated that replying Opposite Party had no role in the lapse of the Policy. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.           

5.           The complainant, filed rejoinder to the replies of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written versions of the Opposite Parties. 

6.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.           After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1 only and dismissed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2. 

8.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.           We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, Counsel for respondent No.1 and proxy Counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.          The appellant/complainant has submitted that as per order passed by the Forum, no detail of charges, no amount has been declared to reimburse to the complainant, which has been charged extra. He further submitted that now the amount comes to Rs.3,59,876/- till 12.07.2017, as applicable interest, as per the order passed by the Forum on 05.06.2017 but failed to pay the same to the complainant. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.2, as a business partner of Opposite Party No.1, should be held responsible with heavy cost. He further submitted that compensation & litigation expenses granted by the Forum is on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the same. 

11.          The Counsel for respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 submitted the Forum has granted sufficient relief to the appellant/complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

12.          Proxy Counsel for respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the Bank has no role for the lapse of the policy, in question and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant. 

13.          After giving our thoughtful consideration, to 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.

14.          The core question that falls for consideration, before us, is as to whether the Forum rightly granted relief to the complainant while passing the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is an admitted fact that the complainant submitted a proposal form No.NU10105942 dated 23.01.2006 proposing the issuance of an Aviva Life Long Unit Linked Policy to Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.5 lacs. On the basis of the proposal form and declaration made therein, the Company issued a Policy bearing No. NLG1206092 commencing from 06.02.2006 for the sum assured of Rs.5 lacs and regular quarterly premium of Rs.12,500/- to be paid till 06.02.2052. It is also AN admitted fact that the complainant requested the Insurance Company for partial withdrawal, which was duly acknowledged and processed by the Company. As such, on the request of the complainant, an amount of Rs.3,94,078/- was transferred in the complainant’s bank account through NEFT (Annexure R-1/E). Due to partial withdrawal, the sum assured in the policy WAS reduced to Rs.1,56,922/-. In the meantime, the Company was in receipt of the complaints from the complainant regarding the charges incurred on his policy by the Company. The Company investigated the matter and replied back vide email dated 13.08.2014. It was also clarified by the Company that due to some technical error, premium got increased due to activation of indexation in the Policy, which further helped in increase of sum assured from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.5,51,000/-. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant was requested to give his confirmation if he wanted to terminate the indexation from the policy and for refund of extra premium deducted in furtherance of same. Copy of email dated 13.08.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-1/F. Thereafter, the Company received various emails from the complainant on 20.08.2014, 20.09.2014 and 12.10.2014, wherein, the complainant complained of deduction of extra charges and charging of premium on indexation amount. The aforesaid complaints were duly responded by the Company vide its emails dated 21.08.2014, 10.10.2014 and 20.10.2014. The Company even admitted that due to some technical error indexation got activated in the Policy and the Company was willing to refund the extra amount if the complainant so wished. However, the complainant vide his email dated 21.10.2014 requested the Company not to process the refund of excess indexation amount (Annexure R-1/G colly). It is crystal clear from written statement of Opposite Party No.1, that the premium got increased due to activation of indexation in the policy and happened due to some technical error at their end.   

15.          With regard to non-mentioning of detail of amount/charges, at the time of passing the impugned order, we are of the view that the Forum has specifically directed Opposite Party No.1 to issue a fresh statement of accounts to the complainant by reversing all the charges, with cumulative effect, which are leviable/chargeable and are not piece & parcel of the Policy, and to pay the same to the complainant. So, we are of the view that there is no need to mention any specific amount/charges because the Forum has rightly held in para Nos. 9 & 10 of the impugned order, which reads thus :-

“9.       On perusal of the reply of Opposite Party No.1 (Para 19 at Pg.26), the Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the premium got increased due to activation of indexation in the Policy and the happened due to some technical error at their end. The said fact itself proves that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

10.       It has come on record that various charges have been deducted from the account of the Complainant which were not piece and parcel of the policy like mortality charges, premium allocation charges and bid offer. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they could recover the aforesaid charges from the account of the Complainant, which to our mind not only amounts to deficiency in service, but also amount to its indulgence into unfair trade practice. At any rate, the Opposite Party No.1 ought to have reversed the aforesaid charges to the Complainant, in order to meet the ends of justice. We have also found that three types of service taxes like bid offer (service tax), service tax (fmc) average and service tax (admn) average have been accounted against the account of the Complainant. In our opinion, the Opposite Party No.1 should levy only one consolidated service tax. Therefore, charging of different types of service taxes amounts to unfair trade practice.”   

16.          With regard to enhancement of compensation & litigation expenses is concerned, it is pertinent to note that earlier the Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.11.2015 filed by the complainant. Aggrieved against the said order, the complainant filed appeal bearing No.330 of 2015 before this Commission, which was partly accepted vide order dated 08.03.2016 and remanded back the case to the concerned Forum, with a direction to decide the same on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the Forum allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 05.06.2017 and granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony & harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. After going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the Forum has sufficiently granted compensation & litigation expenses to the complainant and, therefore, no need to enhance the same.

17.          With regard to dismissal of the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2, it is important to note that the payment is released through ECS, as per the instructions of the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 has also denied in its written statement that with the request of the Bank Manager of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant took policy from Insurance Company. Even Opposite Party No.2 has no role in the lapse of policy. So, we are of view that the Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

18.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the 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.

30.01.2018                                                                   

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb