BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 609 of 2014

                                  Date of institution:           10.10.2014

                                                Date of Decision:             05.08.2015

1.     Nachattar Singh son of Sarja Singh.

2.     Lakhmir Kaur wife of Nachattar Singh

Both residents of village Khuni Majra, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                        ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Co. SCO No.180-181-182, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.     IndusInd Bank, Landran Branch, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.

3.     Raman, Employee of IndusInd Bank, Landran Branch, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (also working as agent of Aviva Life Insurance).

        (Name of OP No.3 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 05.01.2015).

4.     Devinder, Employee of IndusInd Bank, Landran Branch, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (also working as agent of Aviva Life Insurance).

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Anil Chopra, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

Name of OP No.3 deleted.

OP No.2 and 4 exparte.

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)

ORDER

                The complainants pleaded in the complaint that they hold account with OP No.2 i.e. IndusInd Bank and used to visit there. OP No.3 and 4 were employed there and were also working as agents of OP No.1 i.e. Aviva Life Insurance Co. who allured the complainants to invest only once in the policies of OP No.1 for three years and get the double amount after three years. The OPs got signed the documents from the complainants with assurance that they will get the double amount after a period of three years. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of two policies i.e. Rs.50,000/- each to OP No.3 and 4 in the presence of OP No.2 after withdrawing the amount from their account. As such the complainants purchased insurance policies of Aviva Life Insurance having numbers ALE 3032098 and ALE 3031954 in their names in the year 2010 and the said policies were to be matured in the year 2013-14. Later on the complainants lost the policies somewhere and could not be traced despite best efforts. Believing the policies have been matured now, the complainants wrote registered letter dated 04.08.2014 to OP No.1 to supply the details of the said insurance policies but no details have been supplied till the date of filing the complaint. Now complainants need money due to their old age and want to withdraw the amount as the above said policies have already been matured. Complainants again sent a reminder to OP No.1 for supply of details and for release of amount of the said policies vide letter dated 20.08.2014 but of no avail. Then complainants personally visited the OPs but they refused to pay any amount for the reasons best known to them.  The act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the OPs are liable to provide their best services as assured by the OPs and now they are deficient in providing the service. That due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainants have suffered a huge financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

                Lastly the complainants prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to pay to the complainants:

i)      Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment.

ii)     Rs.1,00,000/- @ 18% per annum.

iii)    Rs.20,000/- for costs  of litigation expenses.

iv)    Any other relief or direction which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant.

2.             After service of notice, OP No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed reply.  OP No.2 and 4 are proceeded against exparte as none appeared for them despite of service of notice upon them. The postal authority report qua OP No.3 is that he ‘left’. The complainant could not file correct/alternative/fresh address of OP No.3 and OP No.3 is deleted from array of the OPs on 05.01.2015

                 OP No.1 took preliminary objection that this complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide; barred by limitation; complainants are not consumers; complainants not come with clean hands; the contract of the insurance between the complainants and respondent is governed by its policy terms and conditions; complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the OPs.  Both the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant at the given address in the proposal form and same was duly received by the complainant. It is relevant to state here that the policy bearing No.ALE3031954 had been sent through speed post vide airway bill No.EH55609553IN on 01.09.2010 and policy bearing No.ALE3032098 had been sent through speed post vide airway bill No.EH155609712IN on 01.09.2010. The propose/life assured were explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and only after their satisfaction they provided the details in the proposal form. Both the complainants signed proposal forms in English language after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  It is totally wrong that the complainant were having bank account with OP No.2. It is totally wrong that OP No.3 and 4 are the agents of OP No.1. It is totally wrong that it was told to the complainants that they would get double of the amount after three years. The complainants have concocted a false story.  It is totally wrong that policies in question were single premium policy. The policies were having 20 years premium paying term.

                It is relevant to state here that the surrender value was nil on the date of termination as such nothing was payable to the complainants. The complainants never approached the answering respondent. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of answering respondent. Lastly OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.             The complainants placed on record affidavit Exb.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.C-1 to C-5.

4.             OP No.1 placed on record affidavit of Bhuwan Bhaskar its authorised signatory Exb.OP-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.OP-1 to OP-10

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and have also gone through the file.

6.             OP No.1 took preliminary objection that the complainants are not ‘consumers’ as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the money of the complainants invested in share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complainants are not the consumers as upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance, RP No.658/2012 decided on 23.04.2013.  Therefore, in view of the above said law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, the present complainants are not consumers as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because complainants have invested in Unit Linked Plan of the OP No.1 and hence does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ of the Act.  Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss this complaint, hence the complaint is dismissed.

                Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

August 05, 2015.         

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Presiding Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member