State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Devender Kumar Bharnals vs Auius Lic Ltd. on 31 March, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 31.03.2017 First Appeal- 246/13 (Arising out of the order dated 31.01.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 490/10 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi) Devender Kumar, S/o Sh. Daya Nand, R/o 93-A, DDA Flats, Ghazipur, Delhi-96. .....Appellant Versus Aviva Life Insurance, 5th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. Branch office at Prakash Deep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1. HDFC Bank, NRI Colony, Alaknanda Apartments, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. Previously Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. Through Mrs. Kulpreet Kaur (Manager) Shri Suneet Singh, (Public Relationship Manager) HDFC Bank, NRI Colony, GK-11, New Delhi. Shri Amit Khandelwal-FPC Branch Office at Prakash Deep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1. .....Respondents CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to order dated 31.1.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short, the "District Forum") in CC No.490/10 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed.
Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he had taken an Aviva Life Insurance policy bearing No.WTG1332351 from respondent-1/OP-1. It was alleged that appellant/complainant was not interested in any type of policy. However, when the officials of respondent-2/OP-2 assured that the whole policy would be done under their supervision, the appellant/complainant agreed for the aforesaid policy. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant was told that he had to pay a premium of Rs.25,000/- p.a. for three years and after the maturity i.e. after three years, the appellant/complainant would be paid Rs.1,25,000/-. It was alleged that in good faith of the respondents/OPs, the appellant/complainant agreed to take the aforesaid policy. It was alleged that appellant/complainant was customer of respondent-2/OP-2. It was alleged the appellant/complainant paid regularly without any default the premium amount during the Locking Period. Thereafter appellant/complainant had approached the respondent-1/OP-1 for the refund of the policy. However, the respondent-1/OP-1 flatly refused to pay the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as was assured and was told that he would get only Rs.31,238/- against the aforesaid policy. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant did not accept the aforesaid amount and sent a legal notice on 26.11.09 to respondents/OPs. However, no action was taken by respondents/OPs. Thereafter the aforesaid complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking direction to respondents/OPs to pay maturity amount for which the appellant/complainant had paid premium regularly for 3 years along with interest, compensation & litigation cost.
The complaint was opposed by respondent-1/OP-1 by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that a false complaint has been filed. It was alleged that appellant/complainant had full knowledge that he had to pay annual premium of Rs.25,000/- till he attains the age of 85 years. It was alleged that it was a Unit Linked Plan and insurance cover was also provided vide aforesaid policy. The policy documents were also dispatched to appellant/complainant vide Overnite Airway Bill No. 512460307 on 18.9.06 which was delivered and received by appellant/complainant on 19.9.06 as such the terms and conditions were within the knowledge of appellant/complainant. It was alleged that there was a Freelook Period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents but appellant/complainant did not approached within the said period and as per terms and conditions of the policy, he was entitled for the surrender value. It was alleged that the terms of surrender of policy were also given in the policy documents and the policy could have been surrendered after three annual premiums and in that event, policy holder was entitled to the surrender value as per terms of the policy. It was stated that surrender value of the policy was Rs.32,566/- only. It was further alleged that the policy in this case had also lapsed as appellant/complainant did not pay the renewal premium.
Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-1/OP-1 to pay Rs.75,000/- along with 6% interest and Rs.15,000/-as compensation for harassment including litigation cost.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that only grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the rate of interest on the refund amount of policy and compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum are on lower side. It is contended that keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. District Forum ought to have awarded the same on higher side.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 has contended that as per the surrender value of the policy, the appellant/complainant was entitled for Rs.32,566/- whereas the District Forum has directed for the refund of Rs.75,000/-. It is contended that if the appellant/complainant was not satisfied with the policy, he could have applied within a Freelook Period for cancellation of policy.
It is further contended that respondent/OP has already complied with the orders of District Forum by paying requisite payment to appellant/complainant. Counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 has referred to the calculation sheet to show that the surrender value of the policy was Rs.32,566/-.
It is admitted position that the refund of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 6% has been paid to the appellant/complainant. It is also not denied by the appellant/complainant that there was a free look period of 15 days. If the appellant/complainant was not satisfied with terms and conditions of the policy, he could have exercised his option of not continuing with the policy within aforesaid period. The appellant/complainant has not done so. The District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed the complaint with refund of Rs.75,000/- i.e. complete amount deposited by appellant/complainant along with interest of 6% and Rs.15,000/- as compensation. There is nothing on record to show that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily by the Ld. District Forum in awarding compensation and interest. Considering facts and circumstances, no case for enhancing rate of interest and compensation is made out.
Appeal stands dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has prayed that an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for disposing of the application of the appellant/complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. District Forum and has not been disposed of so far.
The respondent/OP has no objection if the aforesaid application is disposed of by the Ld. District Forum in accordance with law.
Accordingly we direct the District Forum to dispose of the aforesaid application after hearing both the parties in accordance with law.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member