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. 378/2012 Filed on 29.10.2012

ORDER DATED: 27.04.2016

Complainant:

P.Sugathan, Sunil Villa IV, Pathiyarathumvila, Chemmaruthy, Thokkadu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 143.

                             (By Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Branch Manager, M/s. Aviva Life Insurance India (P) Ltd., Third Floor, Rema Plaza, S.S. Koil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Financial Planning Advisor, Aviva Life Insurance, Ashirvad Towers, Plot No. 2, Old No. 182, 3^rd Floor, Kodampakkam High Road, Numgambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

3. Krishna Kumar, Advisor No. Y 0732941, C/o Branch Manager, M/s. Aviva Life Insurance India (P) Ltd., S.S. Koil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A.G. Syamkumar)

This C.C having been heard on 29.03.2016, the Forum on 27.04.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:  The 3^rd opposite party canvassed the complainant for subscribing a policy of M/s Aviva Life Insurance India Pvt. Ltd and thus the complainant opted a pension plus policy for an annual premium of Rs. 50,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- towards first premium on 31.03.2008, for which receipt has been issued.  In the receipt the complainant’s address has been wrongly furnished.  The receipt has been issued from the Kollam Branch of the company.  Though the complainant belongs to the Thiruvananthapuram District the receipt was issued stating the District as Kollam.  Complainant has informed the discrepancy in the address to the 2^nd opposite party then and there itself.  But the policy was also issued stating the name of the district as Kollam.  This caused delay in getting policy to the complainant.  Since the Postal Index Number was furnished in complainant’s address the postal authorities finally recognized that the complainant’s home district is Thiruvananthapuram and re-directed the policy to the post office in which he belongs.  So there was delay in delivering the policy to the complainant.  The policy No. APG 1914434 was issued by the 1^st opposite party from the Thiruvananthapuram Branch of the company.  Since no intimation was received for the remittance of renewal premium the complainant was not in a position to remit the subsequent premium other than the first premium.  The hesitation of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to correct the address of the complainant also roused doubts on the performance of the opposite parties.  The irresponsible act of the opposite parties compelled the complainant to apply for the surrender of the policy and to demand for the payment of the closure value of the policy.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for getting surrender value of the policy several times.  But he was told that the period of the policy was for 5 years and hence the complainant is not eligible for any surrender value.  Consequently the complainant sent a registered letter dated 30.04.2011 to the Financial Planning adviser of M/s Aviva Life Insurance at Chennai requesting for the payment of surrender value of the policy.  But no reply has been received from the financial planning advisor even though reminders have also been sent.  The above act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service and grave unfair trade practice.  The manipulation made in the complainant’s address was with ulterior motive and the complainant was put to heavy financial loss and mental agony.  So he prays for a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with 18% interest from the date of complaint till realization of the amount along with cost and compensation. 

Opposite parties filed version contending as follows:  The present complaint is barred by limitation under Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.  As per the provisions under the Act, a District Forum, the State Commission, or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen.  It is pertinent to note that in the present complaint, the cause of action arose in March 2008 when the policy was issued to the complainant, whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint in December 2012 that is much after the period of expiry of two years.  That after duly deliberating and understanding all the terms and conditions of the Pension Plus Unit Linked plan vide the Key Feature Document, Mr. Sugathan P, the complainant signed the proposal form dated 12.03.2008 bearing No. NNU11933313, giving all relevant details and information in the prescribed form, for a premium of Rs. 50,000/- which was proposed to be paid annually for a term of 5 years.  The said proposal form which was signed by the complainant upon proper understanding the meaning of contents of the proposal form.  The proposal form also contains a provision for a declaration in the proposal form wherein it was stated by the complainant that he had made complete, true and accurate disclosure of all the facts and circumstances as may be relevant for the acceptability of the proposal form.  Based on the declaration made and information provided in the proposal form, the policy was issued to the complainant with commencement date 31.03.2008.  The policy documents along with policy schedule, standard terms and conditions of the said policy were dispatched on 05.04.2008 to the mailing address of the complainant through speed post bearing No. ET413317756IN.  It is pertinent to mention here that said policy documents were dispatched to mailing address of the complainant which was duly filled by the complainant himself in the proposal form.  It was clearly mentioned in policy schedule that said policy is a pension plus unit linked policy and date of final installment is 31.03.2012.  Complainant never raised any question regarding said policy within the free look period.  It is pertinent to mention that policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on the mailing address which was filled by the complainant himself in column 1.10 of the proposal form.  If complainant realized that mailing address provided by him is not correct or not convenient to him, he can simply make a request for change of address but opposite party never received any such request from the complainant.  The said policy contract was in force upon receipt of his consent and approval for affecting the contract for life insurance and proposal form clearly states that it is the proposal form for a pension plus unit linked policy and complainant himself opted a pension plus unit linked plan for a premium amounting to Rs. 50,000/- which is to be paid annually and same were duly filled by the complainant in the column of ‘details of the plain applied for’.  It is further submitted that the premium payment term was also mentioned in the policy schedule, the premium quotation and illustration statement, which is enclosed within the policy documents and these policy documents are clearly indicative of the fact that the policy contract is a long term contract and does not mature within one year.  It is pertinent to mention here that there is a section with a name “What happen if I am unable to pay my premium?” in the key feature document provided to the complainant before signing the proposal form in which it is clearly mentioned what will happen if complainant pay only for 3 years and do not pay thereafter and same is reproduce herewith as: “What happen if I am unable to pay my premium? If you have paid upto one year’s premium, the policy can be reinstated within 2 years from the due date of the first unpaid period, the contract shall terminate and the value of units pertaining to top-up premium, if any, shall be payable on the anniversary, whichever is later.  The death benefit shall be equal to the fund value”.  That the said policy was due for regular premium for the terms March 2009 and opposite party duly communicate to the complainant vide premium reminder notice.  Complainant failed to pay the regular premium for the term March 2009 even after the expiry of 30 days grace period therefore status of said policy was changed to Early Lapse on 29.09.2009.  Early lapse is applicable for all post ULIP post AFF and badlaav products.  Wherein customer discontinues premium payment within 36 months from date of commencement and grace period also get over.  In such a state risk cover along with rider benefits ceases.  When the complainant again failed to reinstate the said policy within the prescribed time frame, the status of the said policies was changed to early lapse not payable on 01.04.2011 as per Article 2(b)(ii)(1) of terms and conditions of said policy.  An early lapse policy does not acquire surrender value.  Here customer does not reinstate policy within revival period as well then policy gets terminated by converting in early lapse not payable and nothing is paid to the customer.  So the complaint is filed on experimental basis which is only to be dismissed.                                                          

Points raised:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?  
2. Is he eligible for any relief as prayed?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.  Opposite party also filed affidavit.  Heard both sides and perused the documents.  Opposite party raised the question of limitation as a preliminary issue.  On going through the policy document, it is seen that the date of commencement of policy is in the year 2008.  Complainant filed this complaint in 2012, i.e; 4 years after commencement.  But the year of last premium to be paid is in 2012.  But in this case complainant paid only the initial premium in the year 2008 and in 2012, no policy was in force, i.e; policy was in a lapsed state.  So the contention of the opposite party regarding limitation will sustain.  Moreover this policy is named ‘pension plus unit linked policy’.  The law is now well settled that policies for speculative nature and are taken for investment purpose, wherein such a policy holder is not a consumer as per the dictum in Ramlal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC).  So the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint will not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  So the question of maintainability is decided against the present complainant here.  Since complaint is found not maintainable, other points are not discussed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. 

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 27^th day of April 2016.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 378/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of first premium receipt dated 31.03.2008

P2     - Copy of schedule of Aviva Life Insurance

P3     - Copy of letter dated 30.04.2011 from P. Sugathan to Financial

             Planning Advisor.

P4     - Copy of postal receipts dated 23.05.2011

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb