IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 203/2011
Thursday, the 30th day of October, 2014
Petitioner : Justin Francis,
Punnamootil House,
Collectorate P.O. Kottayam.
(Adv. Jayakrishnan)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Aviva Life Insurance Co India Ltd.
Nagampadom,
Kottayam -686001
Rep. by its Manager.
2) Aviava Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.
2nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building,
7 Tolstroy, New Delhi – 110001,
Rep. by its General Manager
(Adv. Zakhir Hussain)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 04/08/2011 is as follows.
The complainant joined life saver plus policy introduced by the opposite party. The premium of policy is Rs.25,000/- for quarterly and the term is 19 installments. According to the complainant, the executive of the opposite party assured that the policy holder can stop making of payment of premium at any time and he can withdraw the amount after three years. And also assured that the complainant will get a growth of 25% per annum on the amount invested. The complainant remitted Rs.1,00,000/- ie. four installments. According to the complainant, after 3 years, he had requested to return the amount together with the growth of the same as assured by the opposite party. But the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.7357/- dtd.20/06/2011 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Mumbai. The cheque is not encashed by the complainant. According to the complainant, he had requested the opposite party to provide the details of allocation of the payment made by him. But the opposite party has not ready to issue the same. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties filed version admitting the issuance of the policy. According to the opposite parties, the policy was issued on the basis of the proposal form having life saver plus plan with policy terms and premium paying term being 19 years. They never assured that the complainant can stop making payment of premium at any time and withdraw the amount with growth after 3 years. According to the opposite parties, at the time of issuance of the policy, the complainant was provided with a policy schedule and standard terms and conditions along with other policy documents. And the complainant can cancel the said policy within free look period, if he dissatisfied with the policy terms and conditions, within 15 days of receipt of the policy. However, the complainant after receiving the policy documents with conditions did not exercise this option. The complainant remitted four quarterly payments of Rs.25,000/- each totaling to Rss.1,00,000/- and the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium. So the risk cover along with other benefits ceased. And the complainant may reinstate the policy within 2 years of the due date of the 1st unpaid installment. According to the opposite party, the complainant’s policy was lapsed surrender on 11/06/2009 and an amount of Rs.7,537/- had been paid to the complainant as early lapse surrender value. And the complainant has not encashed. According to the opposite party, on various occasions, they had sent reminder notices and lapse letter for depositing of the renewal premium. But the complainant had not deposited any renewal premium. And on 23/06/2009, they had sent the policy account statement to the complainant. The opposite party had acted strictly in accordance
to the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
Relief and costs?/
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of both sides. Complainant
was examined as Pw1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents from the side of complainant.
Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that even after deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as premium amount of his policy, opposite party had issued a cheque for Rs.7,357/- as surrender value. And the opposite party had not provide details of allocation of the payments made by him. According to the opposite parties, the policy of the complainant was lapsed and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, they had issued a cheque for Rs.7,537/- as early lapse surrender value. Complainant was examined as Pw1 and policy account statement is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1, it can be seen that the complainant remitted Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party as premium. During cross examination Pw1 stated that “Agent X¶ form Ifn H¸n«p \evIn. Policy certificate Ab¨p In«n-bn-Ô. Here opposite party has a definite case that they had issued policy certificate with condition to the complainant and they had acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. But opposite party has not produce any documents to prove that the policy certificate with terms and conditions was issued to the complainant. Moreover the opposite party had not produce the terms and conditions to prove that they had issued cheque for Rs.7,537/- to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
Complainant filed IA 82/12, for an order directing the opposite parties to furnish the details of allocation of the amount paid by the complainant and to file a statement showing how they have calculated the surrender value. But the opposite party failed to comply the Order. From this, it can be assumed that the opposite party has no specific calculation regarding deposited amount and surrender value.’
Opposite party has not stated how they come to a conclusion that complainant is only entitled for a surrender value of Rs.7,537/-. No details of calculation of surrender value are shown. Counsel for the complainant drawn the attention of the Fora with regard to the IRDA (Treatment of Discontinued linked Insurance Policies) Regulations 2010. As Regulation 7, obligation of an insurer up on discontinuance of a policy is stated. As sub clause 5 of Regulation 7, the charges levied on the date of discontinuance, as a percent of one annualized premium and its limits are specified. After one year, the maximum discontinuance charges for the policy having annualized premium above twenty five thousand is shown as lower of 6% (AP or FV) subject to maximum of Rs.6,000/-. So the opposite party is eligible for deduction of Rs.6000/- only. The act of opposite party in not refunding the eligible amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the act of opposite party, complainant had suffered mental pain and sufferings. So complainant is to be compensated. In our view, the deposit amount is to be refunded to the complainant, after deducting Rs.6,000/-. Point No.1 find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1, complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.94,000/- the deposit amount after deducting Rs.6,000/-, the deductable amount to the complainant.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of this Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest, from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2014.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext. A1: Cheque bearing no.321857 dtd.20/06/11 drawn on AXIS Bank.
Ext. A2 : Policy account statement of petitioner from opposite party
Pw1 : Justin Francis
Documents of the opposite parties
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
