BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 139/2012 Filed on 02.05.2012
ORDER DATED: 31.10.2016
Complainant:
Yesudasan. A.P, Uriyarikunnu House, Karumkulam, Pulluvila Post office.
(By Adv. K. Gopakumar)
Opposite parties:
- The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd., T.C 25/1655/11, 3rd Floor, Rema Plaza, S.S. Coil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
- The Managing Director, Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd., Ashiwad Towers, Plot No. 2, Old No. 182, 3rd Floor, Kodambakkom, High Road, Nungambakkom, Chennai-600 034.
(By Adv. A.G. Syamkumar)
This case having been heard on 28.09.2016, the Forum on 31.10.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that complainant is the policy holder in the Aviva Insurance Policy who took the policy on 30.01.2008, Policy No. is ALS 1830272, product name “Life Saver Plus”. At the time when the complainant took the policy the 1st opposite party explained the nature of dealings and date of maturity of policy improperly. The complainant believing the explanations with regard to the nature and modus operandi of the work of the opposite parties, i.e. the insurance company, he remitted the first installment as regular premium amount Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2008 for which opposite parties issued receipt. Subsequent to that the complainant remitted the second installment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in 2009 for which also the opposite party issued receipt. Then as per the advice of the opposite party the complainant remitted the last and final installment as regular premium in 2010 for which the opposite party issued receipt. The opposite parties made the complainant to believe that the complainant should remit only 3 installments within 3 years after which the complainant would be eligible to get Rs. 4,75,000/- on completion of 5 years. As per the terms and conditions of the oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties, the complainant is bound to remit only 3 installments. Now as the period of 5 years completed on January 2012 and the opposite parties are duly bound to return the entire Rs. 4,75,000/- to the complainant on the basis of terms and conditions of the oral agreement and complainant approached this Forum for cheating and misleading the complainant.
Notice sent to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and contested the case. The contention of the opposite parties in brief is that there is no negligence or deficiency in service whatsoever, on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the concerned policy, thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complaint lacks a cause of action. The complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures. It is an established principle of law that the machinery of law cannot be invoked on the basis of mere conjectures. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. As required under the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a free look period of 15 days, during which period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant who was at liberty and obligation to go through the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents, did not raise any complaints/objections regarding the policy either within the free look period of 15 days or within any reasonable time thereafter. Thus the contract of insurance attained finality and the opposite parties have been continuing to provide coverage to the complainant. After the expiry of the free look period, the policy terms and conditions permit surrender of the policy only after completion of 3 years, where surrender value as payable in accordance with the policy terms and conditions shall be payable on surrender of the policy. Complainant has alleged that the opposite party has played fraud on them. It is submitted that it is a well-established principle of law that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery there under cannot be effectively utilized for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating. The complainant having availed a life insurance cover from the opposite party and enjoyed coverage for more than three years cannot be permitted at this belated stage to claim refund of the premiums paid contrary to the terms and conditions of their respective policies. The complainant is only entitled to the surrender value under the said policies on account of the risk bore by the opposite party associated with the policy for three years. Since there is written contract between complainant and opposite party, there is no question of oral agreement and there is no value for oral agreement in the eyes of law when a written agreement/contract between the complainant and opposite party is already exist. It is further submitted as per the terms and conditions of policy contract, the said policy is a long term policy. It is vehemently denied that complainant was cheated and mislead by opposite party. However the said policy was issued based on the information duly filled and signed by the complainant in the proposal form. In the proposal form complainant himself opted said policy for the premium paying term of 19 years. Opposite party after dispatched the policy documents containing policy schedule, terms and conditions, welcome letter and notice of free look period. It was clearly mentioned in the policy schedule that said policy is not a short term policy in fact premium policy terms for the said policy was 19 years and in case complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of said policy he may cancel the said policy with a period of free look period. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon’ble Forum and allegations made against the opposite party.
Issue:
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs sought for?
Issue (i):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and opposite parties also filed chief examination affidavit. Either of the parties cross examined. No document is marked by either parties. For the convenience for rendering judgment this Forum suo moto marked the documents as Exts. P1 & P2 on the part of complainant and Ext. D1 on the part of opposite party. Perused the documents and heard. There is no pleading on the part of complainant regarding negligence or deficiency of service. Hence no issue is raised regarding this. The case of the complainant is based on an oral agreement that opposite parties mislead that the complainant has to pay 3 yearly installments and after 5 years the complainant will get Rs. 4,75,000/-. A case in which there is a written agreement between parties, no legal value for an oral agreement that too regarding a life insurance policy. Complainant has made a futile attempt to grab money by way of a trial litigation. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of October 2016.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 139/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Aviva Life Insurance Policy Document
P2 series - Copy of payment advice and payment details
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of annexure
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
