Full Judgment
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.391 of 2013, filed by the complainants (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-
œIn view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is proved or established against the OPs. However, since the complainant has not got the cheque of Rs.1,76,187.91P encashed, which was sent by the OPs (Ann.R-7) nor it has been disputed by the OPs, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to issue fresh cheque of the said amount i.e. Rs.1,76,187.91P in favour of the complainant and send it to him forthwith. We order accordingly. There is no order as to compensation and costs.?
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being allured, by the false assurance of the Agent of the Opposite Parties, to get good returns, invested a sum of Rs.3 lacs, vide receipt dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure C-1), in Life Assurance “ Unit Linked Pension Plus Policy. Policy No.12118339 dated 09.09.2008, alongwith some documents, was received by the complainant, against the said deposit. However, on receipt of the unit statement (Annexure C-3), value of the deposit was shown to be reduced to Rs.1,81,999.53P. It was stated that, thereafter, on asking of the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited further premiums of Rs.10,000/- each, on 01.09.2009 and 08.09.2010, vide Annexures C-6 and C-7 respectively. As such, the complainant, in all, deposited a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs, with the Opposite Parties.
3. Thereafter, the complainant did not receive any notice or reminder, for depositing the premium amount. It was further stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties, sent him a cheque dated 16.09.2011, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., showing the Policy as paid-up. It was further stated that no details of the units redeemed and NAV at the time of redemption were furnished. It was further stated that even no reasons, for such redemption were given to the complainant. It was further stated that the said cheque had not been encashed by the complainant. Legal notice dated 26.12.2011, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, to redress the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties of not refunding the entire amount, deposited by the complainant, as premiums, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the balance amount, and compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment.
4. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Policy, in question, in favour of the complainant. It was also admitted that, a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, in all, for three years, towards premiums of the said Policy, was deposited by the complainant. It was stated that the first premium paid by the complainant was Rs.3.00 lacs, but later on, on his request, the premium amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/- per annum. It was further stated that the complainant signed the proposal form, after going through the entire set of documents, as also the terms and conditions of the proposed Policy. It was further stated that the Policy, in question, was issued, as proposed by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, while purchasing the aforesaid Policy, duly agreed to bear the risk of investment, in the chosen portfolio. It was further stated that since the renewal/subsequent premium, was not paid by the complainant, in time, therefore, the Policy was converted into a paid-up one. It was further stated that, as such, the complainant was sent a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., through cheque dated 16.09.2011, which was the surrender/ cancellation value of the Policy, as per the terms and conditions thereof (Policy). It was further stated that, the life assured was provided a free-look period of 15 days, within which he could have returned the Policy, and sought refund, in case, the terms and conditions thereof, were not agreeable to him, but he did not do so, but later on, he could not turn round and say that he be refunded the entire amount of premiums. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the appellant/complainant, deposited a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, referred to above, towards premiums, in respect of the Policy, in question, but he was only sent a cheque dated 16.09.2011, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps. He further submitted that, no details of the units redeemed and NAV at the time of redemption were furnished. He further submitted that even no reasons, for such redemption were given to the complainant. He further submitted that even no details were provided, to the complainant, as to why, his first year premium, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, was not fully and completely invested. He further submitted that, at the time of obtaining the Policy, in question, the Agent of the Opposite Parties, made high claims, that the complainant would get assured good returns, but the same proved to be false. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding that the complainant was only entitled to a sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., which was the surrender/paid up value of the Policy, in question. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside, and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the full amount, deposited by him, alongwith compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as also cost of litigation.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The complainant filled in, and signed the proposal form, copy whereof is Annexure R-2, on 26.08.2008, for obtaining the unit linked pension plan Policy. Term of the Policy, in question, was 20 years, and the annual premium, mentioned in the proposal form was Rs.3 lacs per annum. The complainant also signed the declaration, to the effect that he had read and understood the products, as described, in the sales literature. He also confirmed that he had received the Sales Illustration provided by the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, in the prescribed manner. It was also confirmed by the complainant that he had read and understood the same. It was also confirmed by him that he understood that the rates assumed under the Policy, were not guaranteed. The complainant, thus, very well knew that it was a unit linked Policy, and the value of units, was likely to fall or rise, as per the market conditions. The complainant received the Policy, in question, as also the terms and conditions thereof. In case, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy, he could apply for cancellation thereof, and refund of the premium amount, within free-look period of 15 days, but he did not do so. Later on, after the expiry of a period of three years, the complainant could not say that, since the returns of the Policy were not, as were assured to him, by the Agent of the Opposite Parties, the amount of premiums, paid by him, be refunded to him. By not refunding the entire amount of premiums deposited by the complainant, towards the said Policy, as per his desire, after the expiry of a period of three years, the Opposite Parties were not at all deficient, in rendering service.
11. The complainant paid the first premium of Rs.3 lacs. Later on, he asked for reduction of premium, which was reduced to Rs.10,000/- per annum, from Rs.3 lacs per annum. He paid two more premiums. It means that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, as premium, for three years. Thereafter, the complainant did not pay any premium. According to Clause 5 (iii) (a) of the terms and conditions of the Policy, if any premium remained unpaid, as described in Provision 4, after three years of the Policy, the same would be made paid-up. The unutilized funds were continue to be invested; all charges were continue to be deducted, and the Policyholder was entitled to all Policy servicing. Premiums could be paid into a Paid-up Policy, only during the period of five years, from the due date of the earliest outstanding premium. According to Clause 5(iii) (b) the amount paid up, could be reviewed anytime, during the period of five years, from the due date of the earliest outstanding premium, subject to any terms and conditions, which may be specified, from time to time. It was further provided, under this Clause, that if the option was not exercised, the Policy would be cancelled. In the instant case, the complainant did not request for revival of the Policy, within a period of five years. The Policy, thus, acquired the paid-up value. It is evident from the schedule of charges, attached with the Policy, that if the first regular premium amount was between Rs.2 lacs to Rs.4,99,999/- per annum, then 65.00%, of the same (first regular premium amount), was to be allocated, and the remaining amount of the same (first regular premium amount) was to go towards administrative charges. Thus, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, a sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., which was the paid-up value, was sent to the complainant, vide cheque dated 16.09.2011, but according to him, he did not encash the same. Since, the Opposite Parties, sent the amount, through cheque, though the same was not encashed, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, as it had acquired the paid-up value, they were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
12. The claim of the complainant, that he should have been refunded the entire amount of premiums, deposited by him, alongwith compensation, was not sustainable. The complainant enjoyed the cover, for a period of three years. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil P. Tadkalkar, 1 (1996) CPJ 159 (NC), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under:-
œMoreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia (premiums) paid by him during the period of the Policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk. If during this period the complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the Policies, even though only some fraction of the premia (premiums) would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the Policies, the complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two Policies. It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the Policies.?
13. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the complainant could claim the refund entire amount of premiums, referred to above, deposited by him. By not making the payment of the entire amount of premiums, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.