State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagdev Kaur vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited on 28 March, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 22.06.2010.
Date of Decision: 28.03.2014.
Jagdev Kaur wife of Sh. Tarlok Signh, R/o Kothi No.555, Phase-2,
Mohali, through its Special Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Mann Singh
S/o Sh. Balwant Singh, R/o H.No.174, Sector-70, Mohali.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Aviva Tower, Sector
Road, opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon-
122003, Haryana, through its Manager.
2. Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 2nd & 3rd
Floor, SCF 49, Phase-9, Mohali, through its Branch Manager.
3. Centurion Bank of Punjab, SCF 55-57, Phase-7, Mohali, through
its Branch manager.
4. Rajinder Singh Brar S/o Sh. Ajmer Singh, R/o House No.764,
Sector-69, Mohali, Branch Manager and Service Manager
(Retd.).
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
07.05.2010 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.
Sh. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3. None for respondent no.4.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 2
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following four (4) appeals, as the questions of law and facts involved in all the cases are similar and the appeals are directed against the similar orders passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.A. S. Nagar, Mohali (in short "the District Forum"):-
Sr. F.A. No. Names of Parties Order under
No. Appeal
1. F.A. No.1087 of Jagdev Kaur Vs. Aviva Life 07.05.2010
2010 Insurance Company Limited
& Ors.
2. F.A. No.1436 of Sangat Singh Vs. Aviva Life 02.07.2010
2010 Insurance Company Limited
& Anr.
3. F.A. No.1437 of Sangat Singh Vs. Aviva Life 02.07.2010
2010 Insurance Company Limited
& Anr.
4. F.A. No.950 of Mohinder Singh Vs. The 11.05.2011
2011 Manager, Aviva Life
Insurance Company Limited
& Ors.
Facts are taken from F.A. No.1087 of 2010 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Jagdev Kaur, appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the appellant") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the averments that she approached Centurion Bank of Punjab, Mohali, to invest her hard earned money in some fixed deposit scheme, where she met Sh. Rajinder Singh Brar, respondent no.4, who was working as Senior First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 3 Manager (Operation) of the said bank. He persuaded the appellant for buying an insurance policy, stating that the policy is life insurance policy and she can continue the policy, by paying the premium every year and after three years, she can surrender the policy and she will get the maturity amount alongwith the premium already paid. At that time, respondent no.4 did not convey the detailed terms and conditions of the policy as he himself was not aware of the same. It was stated that the appellant will receive the policy document in which detailed terms and conditions would be conveyed.
3. The appellant invested in the insurance policy and she was made to sign on various columns, including the column that she understood the terms and conditions of the policy, but being an educated person, the appellant refused to sign on the blank box. The appellant was also not informed about the 'Free Look Period' of 15 days, nor she was told that after three years, she could get only surrender value.
4. The appellant paid the first premium on 22.11.2006 and insurance policy bearing No.WLG-1381231 dated 22.11.2006 was issued. Immediately after paying the first premium, the appellant left for England and could not look into the terms and conditions supplied, as she did not receive the policy document. However, she paid three premiums for the policy as follows:-
Premium Paid Date of Payment
Rs.50,000/- 20.11.2006
Rs.50,000/- 21.11.2007
Rs.50,000/- 20.11.2008
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 4
5. After making the payment of three premiums, the appellant went to get the refund of the amount and she approached the respondents, but was surprised to know that the policy is not a life insurance policy, but it depends upon the market. Money deposited by the appellant has been invested in the market and she would get the fund value as on the date of surrender of the policy, which means that there could be deductions to the extent of 70% of the policy value.
6. The appellant requested the respondents that she should be paid the entire amount, as she has not been informed about the terms and conditions of the policy and the respondents replied vide letter dated 13.11.2009 that her case was being investigated on utmost priority, but no response was received. In the meantime, the appellant received reply dated 20.11.2009 to her earlier letter, informing her that she submitted the duly signed complete proposal form on the basis of which the policy was issued after detailed discussion by the bank with the customer and she has not opted for 'Free Look Period' within 15 days of receipt of the policy document. Being not satisfied, she again wrote a letter dated 25.11.2009. The alleged proposal form, on which the respondents are relying, does not bear the signatures of the appellant on vernacular declaration and the policy document was received when she was not in India and, as such, she could not avail 'Free Look Period'. The wording of the policy document is so complex that it cannot be understood by a common man. The respondents have deliberately made the policy document such a complex document that a common man cannot understand the various terms and conditions.
7. As per the knowledge of the appellant, there was a tie-up between the bank, respondent no.3 and respondents no.1 & 2, to sell First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 5 maximum number of insurance policies and to share the commission. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Non-refund of the amount to the appellant further amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the appellant is liable to be compensated.
8. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay the premium amount of Rs.1.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment and compensation of Rs.1.00 lac for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
9. In the written version filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The appellant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and there is no consumer dispute. The appellant is a matured and educated person and is graduate and made the investment of her own free will, knowing fully the details thereof. The appellant is trying to take benefit of her own wrongs. At the time of filling the proposal form, the appellant gave her residential address as well as permanent address as House No.555, Phase-2, Mohali, Punjab. The appellant, after taking the policy, never informed about change of her address as well as her visit to England and she cannot be permitted to take benefit of her own wrong. The appellant was explained all the features of the policy and she is trying to use the machinery of the District Forum, to commit breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement and she is entitled only to the value calculated under the head 'Surrender Value'.
10. The appellant approached the respondents for issuing of insurance policy and the proposal form dated 7th November, 2006 was First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 6 duly filled and signed by the appellant after understanding the contents of the proposal form. The first premium was also received alongwith the proposal form and the same was credited to the account of the respondents. On the basis of the proposal form and the declaration made therein, the respondents issued a 'Life Long Unit Policy' bearing No.WLG-1381231. The policy document was dispatched to the appellant on 23rd November, 2006 vide Overnight Courier Docket No.524559898 and was delivered on 24th November, 2006 alongwith all the terms and conditions. The appellant had the option to get the policy cancelled within 15 days, but she did not opt for the same and continued paying the premium for three years.
11. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant be directed to produce on record the details of her visit to England alongwith detail of period of stay, i.e. the copy of passport/visa documents. The appellant has levelled false allegations. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
12. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.3, preliminary objections were taken that the appellant has complained regarding insurance policy which has been issued by respondents no.1 & 2 and respondent no.3 is not, at all, concerned and the appellant is not consumer of respondent no.3 and the complaint is not maintainable.
13. On merits, pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 7
14. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.4 in the shape of affidavit, it was admitted that there was tie up with the bank and respondents no.1 & 2 to sell their insurance policies to the bank employees and they were sharing commission. No briefing regarding the insurance policy was given to the employees by the insurance company or the bank. No detailed terms and conditions were provided to the employees by them, so that the same could be explained to the customers. Ms. Rimmi Bhatti, was working as Advisor on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 and used to sit in the bank during office hours and used to fill the forms and persuade the customers to buy the policies. Said Ms. Rimmi Bhatti persuaded the appellant to invest her money in insurance policy of respondents no.1 & 2 and the proposal form was also filled by Ms. Rimmi Bhatti. Respondent no.4 never misguided the appellant.
15. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
16. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that respondent no.4 has not stated that he asked the appellant to invest her money in the policy in question. Rather, he stated that it is Ms. Rimmi Bhatti, who persuaded the appellant to invest her money in the policy. The entire basis of the complaint is shattered when she does not make any allegations of inducement against Ms. Rimmi Bhatti, the person concerned in selling the policy. There is no evidence on record to show that there is any arrangement between the insurance company and respondent no.3 under which respondent no.3 or its employees were obliged to work as First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 8 agents of the insurance company for the sale of the policy in question. The appellant never brought into notice of respondents no.1 & 2 about the change of her address. Whosoever received the policy on her behalf, brought all the terms and conditions to her notice and because of that, she deposited next two premiums of the policy. It was a Unit Linked Policy, subject to market fluctuation. For three years, the appellant seems to have remained under the hope that there would be upward trend in the market and the NAV of her units would appreciate. It was its depreciation that seems to have caused panic to her mind and prompted her to file the present complaint, with the allegations made in it. The appellant had been receiving the annual statement of NAV and was very much conscious of the fact about the real value of her investment. She never complained and rather kept on paying the premiums. There is no merit in the contention that she was not aware of the 'Key Features Document" of the policy, or "Right to Consider Notice", when received the policy document. She has no right to seek the refund of her premium with interest as demanded by her. She is entitled only to receive the surrender value of the policy as per the standard terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. The complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/- out of which, Rs.2,000/- have to be paid to respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- to respondent no.3. The appellant was given liberty to receive the fund value of the policy under standard terms and conditions of the policy, whenever she wished.
17. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.05.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 9
18. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, except respondent no.4, on whose behalf, none appeared at the time of arguments.
19. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was allured by the officials of respondent no.3, to buy the insurance policy, with the assurance that she would get the maturity value, including the premium. The appellant immediately left for foreign country and could not go into the details of the terms and conditions. Earlier, the District Forum has allowed the complaint in case "Tejinder Pal Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Co." on the same grounds, but in the present complaint, it was otherwise. The District Forum has wrongly held that Jagdev Kaur has not filed the affidavit, whereas she has authorized Sh. Mann Singh, to plead her case and executed special power of attorney in favour of Mann Singh. The appellant has made specific allegations that she was allured by the respondents no.3 & 4 to purchase the insurance policy and said Ms. Rimmi Bhatti was also sitting in the office of respondent no.3 and the appellant was not knowing the names of the officials. The case of the appellant is not against Ms. Rimmi Bhatti and respondent no.4, but the specific case of the appellant is that the terms and conditions were not delivered to her, nor she was made aware of the same. The complaint was dismissed on technical grounds and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
20. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied and she was away to First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 10 foreign country and was unable to exercise the option during the Free Look Period. It has been contended that the appellant has paid three premiums and is entitled to refund of the amount under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Notification dated 16th February, 2013. It has been argued that these regulations are applicable to all the Linked Insurance Policies even prior to the coming into force of these regulations, as is provided under Regulation-1 (d) of the Regulations. It has been argued that under Regulation-13, the table has been provided and the respondent insurance company can make deductions only as per this table. It has been argued that under the definition of 'Dis- continuance' under 1-A (f), the provisions regarding 'discontinuance' are made. It has been argued that the District Forum has allowed the complaint in similar circumstances in another case on similar grounds. It was prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside.
21. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the policy was delivered and the terms and conditions were made known to the appellant and in the reply, it was admitted. After paying three premiums, no further premium was paid and the policy lapsed. The appellant signed the proposal and after receiving the policy and the terms and conditions, she did not exercise any option to cancel the same within the 'Free Look Period'. It has been contended that the Regulations of IRDA-2013 are not applicable, as the same do not have any retrospective effect. The order passed by the District Forum is detailed and speaking and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 11
22. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record and other material placed on the file.
23. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Notification dated 16th February, 2013 has come into force. Section 1
(d) of this Notification provides as follows:-
"Unless otherwise provided by these regulations, nothing in these regulations shall deem to invalidate the linked insurance policies entered prior to these regulations coming into force."
24. From Clause 1 (d) of the said Regulations, it is clear that unless otherwise provided by these regulations, nothing shall invalidate the linked insurance policies entered prior to these regulations' coming into force. Thus, these regulations are applicable to all those unit linked insurance policies for which, nothing specifically has been provided.
25. Admittedly, the appellant has invested in the insurance policy and she has taken the various grounds that the terms and conditions were not supplied, or she was not informed about the 'Free Look Period' of 15 days, but this plea is not tenable because the appellant paid the first premium on 22.11.2006 and the insurance policy bearing No.WLG-1381231 dated 22.11.2006 was issued. The appellant thereafter paid three premiums of Rs.50,000/- each as detailed in Para No.4 of the order. The last premium was paid on 20.11.2008 and thereafter, the policy was discontinued. The term 'Discontinuance' has been defined under Clause 1-A (f) of the above regulations as follows:-
"1-A(f):- "Discontinuance" means the state of a policy that could arise on account of surrender of the policy or non-payment of the First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 12 contractual premium due before the expiry of the notice period provided for stipulated in sub regulation (i) of the Regulation 13
(a) herein.
Provided that no policy shall be treated as discontinued on non- payment of the said premium if, within the grace period, the premium has not been paid due to the death of the insured or upon the happening of any other contingency covered under the policy."
26. Under Clause 1-A(x), 'Revival Period' is defined as the period of two consecutive years from the date of discontinuance of the policy. Admittedly, after the year 2008, no premium was paid and the revival period has also expired, but the policy has not been revived.
27. The appellant has sought refund of the entire amount of premium deposited alongwith interest and costs etc., but the above regulations deal with this proposition. Regulation-13 deals with 'Obligations as of an insurer upon discontinuance of a policy before lock-in-period'.
28. Regulation-13 (vi) provides as to how the premium deposited is to be refunded after discontinuance. It is reproduced as follows:-
"13 (vi):- To ensure that the charges levied on the date of discontinuance (as a percentage of one annualized premium or a percentage of single premium) do not exceed the limits specified below:-
(1) For annual premiums:-First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 13
Where the Maximum Maximum
policy is Discontinuance Discontinuance
discontinued Charges for the Charges
during the policies having for the policies
policy year annualized premium having annualized
up to premium above Rs.
Rs.25,000/- 25,000/-
1 Lower of 20% * ( AP Lower of 6% * ( AP or
or FV/policy
FV/policy account account value) subject
value) to a
subject to a maximum maximum of Rs. 6000
of Rs.3000
2 Lower of 15% * ( AP Lower of 4% * ( AP or
or FV/policy
FV/policy account account value) subject
value) to a
subject to a maximum maximum of Rs.5000
of Rs.2000
3 Lower of 10% * ( AP Lower of 3% * ( AP or
or FV/policy
FV/policy account account value) subject
value) to a
subject to a maximum maximum of Rs. 4000
of Rs.1500
4 Lower of 5% * ( AP or Lower of 2% * ( AP or
FV/policy account FV/policy account
value) value) subject to a
subject to a maximum maximum of Rs. 2000
of Rs.1000
5 and onwards Nil Nil
(2) For Single premium policies:
Where the Maximum Discontinuance Maximum
policy is Discontinuance
discontinued Charges for the policies Charges for the
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 14
during the having policies
policy year Single Premium up to having Single
Rs.25,000/- Premium above
Rs.25,000/-
1 Lower of 2% *(SP or Lower of 1% *(SP or
FV/policy FV/policy
account value) subject to a account value) subject
maximum of Rs.3000/- to a
maximum of Rs.6000/-
2 Lower of 1.5% *(SP or Lower of 0.5% *(SP or
FV/policy FV/policy account
account value) subject to a value)
maximum of Rs.2000/- subject to a maximum
of
Rs.5000/-
3 Lower of 1% '"(SP or Lower of 0.25% *(SP
FV/policy or
account value) subject to a FV/policy account
maximum of Rs.1500/- value)
subject to a maximum
of
Rs.4000/-
4 Lower of 0.5% *(SP or Lower of 0.1% *(SP or
FV/policy FV/policy account
account value) subject to a value)
maximum of Rs.1000/- subject to a maximum
of
Rs.2000/-
5 and onwards Nil Nil
AP- Annualised Premium
SP-Single Premium
FV- Fund Value
b. Provided that where a policy is discontinued, only discontinuance charge and Fund management charge, which shall not exceed 50 bps First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 15 per annum on discontinuance fund/policy account value, as applicable, may be levied by the insurer and no other charges by whatsoever name shall be levied.
c. Provided that no discontinuance charges shall be imposed on top- ups premiums."
29. Under Regulation -15 (b), it has been provided as follows:-
"The insurer shall refund the amount by means of a cheque or demand draft, to be delivered to the insured, at his last known address or through any other electronic mode of payment to the specific bank account of the insured. However, the insurer may deduct discontinuance charges on the date of the discontinuance on such policies, which shall not exceed the charges stipulated in sub-Regulation (vi) of Regulation 13 (a) (above noted).
30. In view of the above discussion and the regulations, the provisions for deduction of charges as prescribed in Regulation 13 (vi) (4) are applicable as the policy was discontinued after payment of three premiums. The relevant provision is again reproduced for the purpose of convenience as follows:-
"13 (vi) (4):-
4. Lower of 5% * (AP or FV/policy Lower of 2% * (AP or account value) subject to a FV/policy account value) maximum of Rs.10003[- subject to a maximum of Rs.2000
31. As per above provision, the respondents can deduct lower of 2% (AP or FV/policy account value) subject to maximum of First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 16 Rs.2,000/-. The respondents cannot deduct more that the amount as provided under these regulations.
32. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 07.05.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed and the respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) are directed to refund the premium deposited by the appellant to the tune of Rs.1.50 lacs minus the charges as per the above regulation. The respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) shall also pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant.
33. Respondents no.1 & 2 shall pay the entire amount to the appellant/complainant within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
34. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.1500/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1436 of 2010:-
35. Similarly, in F.A. No.1436 of 2010 (Sangat Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.), the appellant, after being publicized by the respondents, got insurance policies bearing No.NLG-1231220 and paid a premium of Rs.49,000/- on 29.03.2006. At the time of taking the first premium, the appellant was not disclosed any terms and conditions or free look period of 15 days. The premium was received on the pretext that it was for a life insurance policy only. The appellant is a villager and only knows only Punjabi language. At the First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 17 time of obtaining signatures on the proposal form by the Sales Executives of the respondents, it was told that the policy document will be sent afterwards. The appellant could not avail the option of free look period, as he never received the policy document. Due to financial constraints, the appellant approached the respondents, to withdraw the amount, but was surprised to know that the policies are not life insurance policies and are depending upon the market. The appellant requested the respondents to refund the amount deposited, as he was unable to continue with the policies, but despite giving assurance, nothing was done. Rather, the respondents advised the appellant to pay regular premium for three years, or else the policy will lapse and the appellant paid another sum of Rs.49,000/- vide cheque no.13433 dated 05.05.2007. The respondents have not refunded the premiums paid and it amounts to deficiency in service. A legal notice dated 02.02.2010 was served upon the respondents, but no reply was given.
36. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the insurance premium of Rs.98,000/- w.e.f. 29.03.2006 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
37. The respondents contested the complaint by filing the written version on the same lines of their written version as given in F.A. No.1087 of 2010.
38. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2010, on its similar observations as given in F.A. No.1087 of 2010, dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
39. In view of reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1087 of 2010 (Jagdev Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 18 Ors.), the F.A. No.1436 of 2010 (Sangat Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 02.07.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant is allowed and the respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) are directed to refund the premium deposited by the appellant to the tune of Rs.98,000/- minus the charges as per the above regulation. The respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) shall also pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
40. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1437 of 2010:-
41. Similarly, in F.A. No.1437 of 2010 (Sangat Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.), the appellant, after being allured by the respondents, got insurance policies bearing No.NLG-1279663 and paid a premium of Rs.45,000/- on 26.06.2006. At the time of taking the first premium, the appellant was not disclosed any terms and conditions or free look period of 15 days. The premium was received on the pretext that it was for a life insurance policy only. The appellant is a villager and only knows only Punjabi language. The appellant could not avail the option of free look period, as he never received the policy document. Due to financial constraints, the appellant approached the respondents, to withdraw the amount, but First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 19 was surprised to know that the policies are not life insurance policies and are depending upon the market.The appellant requested the respondents to refund the amount deposited, as he was unable to continue with the policies, but despite giving assurance, nothing was done. Rather, the respondents advised the appellant to pay regular premium for three years, or else the policy will lapse. The respondents have not refunded the premiums paid and it amounts to deficiency in service. A legal notice dated 02.02.2010 was served upon the respondents, but no reply was given.
42. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the insurance premium of Rs.45,000/- w.e.f. 26.06.2006 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
43. The respondents contested the complaint by filing the written version on the same lines of their written version as given in F.A. No.1087 of 2010.
44. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2010, on its similar observations as given in F.A. No.1087 of 2010, dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
45. In view of reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1087 of 2010 (Jagdev Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Ors.), the F.A. No.1437 of 2010 (Sangat Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 02.07.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant is allowed and the respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) are directed to refund the premium deposited by the First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 20 appellant to the tune of Rs.45,000/- minus the charges as per the above regulation. The respondents no.1 & 2 (insurance company) shall also pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
46. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.950 of 2011:-
47. Similarly, in F.A. No.950 of 2011 (Mohinder Singh Vs The Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited & Ors.), the appellant has two sons namely Tajinder Singh and Satinder Singh. The appellant filed the complaint being power of attorney holder of Sh. Tajinder Singh. The appellant is having saving bank account with Centurion Bank of Punjab (now HDFC Bank). The appellant sold his share of land as well as share of land of his son Tajinder Sing, who is living abroad and got handsome amount. The appellant was allured by the officials of respondents no.1 to 3 to invest the amount in the plans of Aviva in order to get recurring income, with the assurance that on making only one time investment, he would be getting recurring income on the investments. The appellant agreed and the details of his family members were taken by the Branch Manager and agents of respondents no.1 to 3. The appellant was surprised to know that respondents no.1 to 3 issued the policy in the name of Sh. Tajinder Singh i.e. eldest son of the appellant, who is living abroad for the last 10 years and has not come to India. This fact came to notice of the First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 21 appellant from the Account Statement of his saving account on 01.10.2007 which shows payment of Rs.60,000/- having been made in favour of Aviva Life Insurance. The amount has been deducted from the account of the appellant. The appellant approached the office of the respondents and came to know that the policy has been issued in the name of his son Tajinder Singh and two installments of Rs.60,000/- each have been received by the respondents. The appellant was kept in dark, saying that the amount taken from him is one time investment and has been invested in the fixed deposit and Tajinder Singh is the nominee. This amounts to unfair trade practice, as Tajinder Singh was not in India and no proposal form has been signed by him and no contract has been entered between the son of the appellant and the respondents.
48. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the insurance premium of Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
49. The respondents contested the complaint by filing the written version on the same lines of their written version as given in F.A. No.1087 of 2010.
50. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2011, observed that proposal form Ex.R-1 shows that Tejinder Singh son of the appellant applied for the policy and signed the same. The dispute whether Tejinder Singh was in India at the time of issuing the policy or not, can be decided by the civil court. As per the appellant, he came to know about issuance of the policy in the name of his son Tejinder Sing on 01.10.2007, but the appellant remained silent for more First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 22 than three years and four months and the complaint is barred by law of limitation. The appellant filed the complaint, as attorney of Tajinder Singh @ Tejinder Singh, but no power of attorney has been placed on file. Tejinder Singh has not been impleaded as party. The complaint was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant, to seek his remedy from the civil court, if permitted by law.
51. The appellant has filed the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney dated May 17/19, 2006 as well as authority letter given by the son of the appellant dated 19.05.2011. Both these documents are duly attested by Notary Public, California. It means that the appellant had the authority on behalf of his son Tajinder Singh, to file the complaint as well as the appeal.
52. In view of above discussion as well as in view of reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1087 of 2010 (Jagdev Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Ors.), the F.A. No.950 of 2011 (Mohinder Singh Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Ors.) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.05.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant is allowed and the respondents no.1 to 3 (insurance company) are directed to refund the premium deposited by the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- minus the charges as per the above regulation. The respondents no.1 to 3 (insurance company) shall also pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
53. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 20.03.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.1087 of 2010 23
54. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
55. Copy of the order be placed in:-
2. F.A. No.1436 of Sangat Singh Vs. Aviva Life 2010 Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
3. F.A. No.1437 of Sangat Singh Vs. Aviva Life 2010 Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
4. F.A. No.950 of Mohinder Singh Vs. The 2011 Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member March 28, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)