Baldev Singh Bajwa S/o Sh.Gopal Singh, R/o H.No.458, Kansal, Chandigarh (Senior Citizen).

                                                                                                .…Appellant

                                                Vs.

1.      Through Sh. Gaurav Bajaj, Assistant Manager, Br. Customer Service, M/s Aviva LIC,  SCO No.180-82 (GF), Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh,

2.      M/s Aviva LIC through Managing Director.5th Floor, JMD Regents Square, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon,

                                                                                                …. Respondents

BEFORE:       JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Present:          Appellant in person.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 21.6.2012, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by him, was disposed of in the following manner;

“As a result of the above discussion, we dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to release the maturity amount of the policy in question to the complainant forthwith, subject to his completion of all necessary formalities, referred to above.”

2                    The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Pension Plus Single Premium-Unit Linked Policy from Opposite Party No.1 by paying single premium of Rs.1,15,000/-, for a term of 5 years, with maturity date as 22.11.2011. It was stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on the due date i.e. 22.11.2011 to get the maturity amount, but it refused to accept the papers and flatly refused to refund the invested amount. It was further stated that, as such, a written complaint was made to Opposite Party No.2 on 22.11.2011, which it duly replied.  The complainant again sent a letter dated 30.11.2011 in response to which he was informed that his case was being referred to the Complaint Redressel Executive, but nothing positive was done.  It was further stated that the complainant vide letters Ann.C-6 to C-9 requested the   Opposite Parties to refund his invested amount, but again he was informed that his case was pending with the Complaint Redressel Executive.  It was further stated that because of the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had to undergo a huge financial loss, harassment and as well as mental agony. Hence this complaint was filed.

3                    In their joint reply, the Opposite Parties admitted the issuance of policy in question having maturity date as 22.11.2011.  It was stated that the   Opposite Parties  sent a number of reminders to the complainant, for submission of required documents i.e. original policy document, copy of cancelled cheque, self attested photo ID proof, and Maturity Payout Form, on 15.9.2011, 11.10.2011 and 9.12.2011, but to no effect. It was further stated that, as per the policy, the complainant was required to exercise one of the options, as mentioned in Article 4.1 Maturity Benefit of Policy Document, but the Opposite Party-Company did not receive any option, or consent, from him.  The remaining allegations, made in the complaint, were denied.

4                    After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum disposed of the complaint, as stated above.

5                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

6                    We have heard the appellant/complainant, in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully, on the point, as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

7                    The appellant/complainant submitted that as per Article 8 of the Standard terms and conditions of the Policy, he was entitled to surrender the policy, and get the full refund, but the District Forum instead of ordering the full and final refund of the amount, only directed the Opposite Parties, to release the maturity amount, as per Article 4 of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the Policy. He further submitted that according to the said Article, he had two options either to withdraw one third of the maturity value, in lumpsum, and invest the remaining amount or as per the second option to re-invest the entire amount once again. It was further submitted that he was not interested in re-investing his amount but wanted to get back the full amount.

8                    Admittedly, the appellant/complainant purchased Pension Plus Single Premium-Unit Linked Policy on 22.11.2006, by paying single premium of Rs.1,15,000/- for a term of five years with maturity date as on 22.11.2011. The District Forum, in its order, observed that the complainant was entitled to maturity amount of the policy, as per Article 4 of the Standard terms & conditions, after completion of all the necessary formalities. The grouse of the appellant/complainant, in appeal is that he was entitled to get the refund of full amount as per Article 8 of the Standard terms and conditions of the policy. After going through the record and evidence, we are of the considered opinion, that the complainant only approached the Opposite Parties, on the date of maturity of the policy i.e. on 22.11.2011. Thus, in the absence of any specific document, regarding surrender of the policy, prior to the maturity date, the contention of the appellant that he was entitled to the refund of full amount, as per Article 8 of the Standard terms and conditions of the policy, is not sustainable. Moreover, in annexure C-3 placed, on record, by the complainant, the   Opposite Parties, in response to his letter dated 22.11.2011, clearly mentioned that “we have thoroughly investigated the case and found that we have sent all the communications like claim letter on September 15^th and Oct 11^th 2011, regarding maturity and you have confirmed the receipt of letters as well. Further a call out was also made in this regard but received no response from your side hence policy got matured on the mentioned date.” The complainant admitted receipt of these letters in para No.2 of the complaint. Hence, it is crystal clear that the   Opposite Parties had informed the complainant, regarding the maturity of the Policy, well before the due date, but he neither responded to the same nor sent any written request for surrender value prior to maturity date.  Therefore, the complainant cannot take benefit of Article 8, after maturity of the policy, as he failed to do so during the existence of the policy. Hence the District Forum rightly observed that the Complainant was entitled to maturity amount as per Article 4.  

9                    In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The order passed by the District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, in limine, being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

            Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge