Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/34/2015

J.C.Rukmani, F/71, W/o.J.S.Chakrapani, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Krishnamoorthy

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  03.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  31.08.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 31^st  DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

C.C.NO.34/2015

 

 

Mrs. J.C.Rukmani,

W/o.J.S.Chakrapani,

No.23, Muthiappa Street,

First Floor, Shenoy Nagar,

Chennai – 600 030.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Ashirwad Towers,

Plot No.2, Old No.182, 1^st  Floor,

Kodambakkmam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Aviva Life Insurance Company India. Ltd.,

Head Office: Aviva Tower, Sector Road,

Opposite DLF Golf Course, DLF Phase V,

Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122 003.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 24.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Dr.G.Krishnamurthy,

                                                                    K.G.Poornima, M.Aswin,

                                                                    S.Sivaprakasam & N.Samundeeswari

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : Mrs.Elveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to pay full maturity value of Rs.2,50,000 and also to pay compensation  for mental agony and substandard service of the Opposite Parties with litigation expenses u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant availed Insurance Policy bearing policy No.ALP1847294, Life bond policy commencing on 06.02.2008 with onetime payment of Rs.50,000/- which matures after 5 years with maturity amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the Maturity date is 06.02.2013. On 16.12.2013, the Complainant received a letter informing that a sum of Rs.1554/- matured value was deposited in her account. The payment of the above amount is illegal and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant issued legal notice, realizing their fraud the Opposite Parties deposited another sum of Rs.18,366/- in the Complainant account. They also sent a reply admitting their mistake.

          2. The Opposite Parties deposited the matured value of Rs.18,366/- against the insured sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on the maturity value. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to pay full maturity value of Rs.2,50,000/- and also to pay compensation  for mental agony and substandard service of the Opposite Parties with litigation expenses.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant submitted the proposal Form bearing dated 19.01.2008 for issuance of an insurance policy namely Life Bond Plus – Unit Linked (in short “Life Bond Plus”) so as to provide an insurance cover with an investment plan. Accordingly, on the basis of the Proposal Form the Complainant was issued a Life Long Policy bearing policy No.ALP 1847294 was issued by the Opposite Parties commencing from 06.02.2008 for a sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- with a single premium of Rs.50,000/-. The date of maturity of the policy is 06.02.2013. The Complainant is in receipt of the policy documents including the “Right to Reconsider’ Notice, since the same is no disputed. According to the right to Reconsider Notice the policy holder can cancel the policy within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the policy documents “Freelook Period” if he/she disagrees with any of the terms and conditions of the policy. In case of cancellation within freelook period the policyholder is entitled to refund of the premium amount subject to nominal deductions. However, the Complainant did not opt to cancel the said policy but continued the same.    

          4. On the maturity of the policy the Opposite Parties sent the payout letter which he was received  by the policy holder on 16.12.2013 stating therein that the policy has matured on 02.06.2013 and the total maturity value accrued on the maturity date is at Rs.1,504/-. The Opposite Parties also paid an additional sum of Rs.50/- as interest at 4% quarterly compounded. Hence the Opposite Parties transferred a total amount of Rs.1,554/- vide NEFT in to the Complainant’s account. As per the IRDA/Life/ORD/MISC/243/11/2014 dated 03.11.2014 the Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 21.01.2015 had intimated to the Complainant that as per the IRDA order the extra mortality rating had to be removed. Hence complying with the same an amount of Rs.18,366/- was transferred through NEFT into the Complainant’s account on 19.01.2015. The Complainant entrusted for the benefit as per article 7 of the terms and conditions of the policy and same was paid to her. That the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as admittedly the Insurance policy availed by the Complainant was unit Link Policy enabling the Complainant to make speculative investment, which is not covered under the Act. Therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant took an insurance policy bearing policy No.ALP 1847294, Life Bond Policy for a period 5 years commencing from 06.02.2008 and matures on 06.02.2013 with onetime payment of Rs.50,000/- and the policy sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/-. Ex.A1 is the receipt for the payment of premium amount. Ex.B2 is the proposal form submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties to avail the policy. Ex.B3 is the policy issued to the Complainant on the basis of her proposal form. Ex.B4 is the terms and conditions of the policy.

          7. Admittedly, after the policy was matured the Opposite Parties deposited a sum of Rs.1554/- in her account as per Ex.A2. Against the said deposit amount the Complainant sent Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 legal notices to the Opposite Parties that the amount deposited in her account is very meager and also call upon them to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter the Opposite Parties deposited another sum of Rs.18,366/- in her account towards extra Mortality charges to the Complainant account.

          8. However, the Complainant would contend that she is entitled for full maturity amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest and failed to pay the same to her, the Opposite Party have committed deficiency in service.

          9. The Complainant invested the sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Opposite Parties in unit linked policy. The sum assured in the policy Ex.B3 is a sum of Rs.2,50,000. Such amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the policy the Complainant is not entitled on the maturity of the policy. In Ex.B4 terms of the policy, the article 7 provides benefits to the policy holder. As per that article 7 (i) only upon the death of the insured, the sum assured and the value of units are entitled to the insured person. In the case in hand on the date of maturity the Complainant is alive and therefore as per article 7 (i) the Complainant is not entitled for a sum assured in the policy.

          10.  Article 7(3) provides if the insured is survives on the date of maturity, the company is liable to pay the fund value. Further the Complainant is also entitled for the mortality charges. Apart from that the Complainant is not entitled for any other charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore the Opposite Parties have rightly paid the fund value and mortality charges to the Complainant and the Complainant is not entitled for the sum assured amount in the policy and hence, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

Since the Complainant has not proved the deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 31^st day of August 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.02.2008                   First Premium Receipt

Ex.A2 dated 16.12.2013                   Pay out Letter (PL)

Ex.A3 dated 04.07.2014                   Legal Notice dated 04.07.2014

Ex.A4 dated 28.07.2014                   Legal Notice dated 28.07.2014

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement

Ex.A6 dated 21.01.2015                   AVIVA letter dated 21.01.2015

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Complainant Bank Statement

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Letter of Authority

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Proposal Form

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Policy of Insurance

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Terms and conditions of the policy

 

Ex.B5 dated 12.12.2013                   Letter sent by Opposite Party’s to the Complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT