West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/31

Dipti Sinha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Jun 2015

ORDER

This is a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

In brief, the case of the complainant is that Dipti Sinha, the complainant, who is a Sr. citizen, aged about 72 years purchased a policy bearing No. 0079884394 on 28.12.2007 from Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd.(O.P) and paid regular premium of ₹ 50,000 per year. Complainant was assured that after three year full amount may be drawn with interest. Accordingly she requested the O.Ps on several dates for the withdrawal of full amount but the O.Ps agreed to pay only one-third of the amount available on vesting of the policy without any interest and informed that rest two third was to be used for purchase an immediate annuity plan and requested the complainant to choose an insurance company. The complainant met the O.Ps several times and requested for the payment of full amount. But the O.P did not pay any heed. Finding no other way, the complainant filed this case and prayed for reliefs as per the complaint.

The O.Ps have contested the case by filing a single written version and stated that the complainant purchased the policy in question and paid four premiums of ₹ 50,000 each and the date of vesting of the policy was 28.12.2012. The O.Ps have also stated that the policy purchased by the complainant is a deferred annuity plan and as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant had an option to withdraw from the policy by making complete withdrawal after three years locking period but prior to the date of vesting and the demand of full payment made by the complainant after the date of vesting is denied as per terms and conditions of the policy. The O.Ps have also mentioned that they are ready to disburse the one-third of amount available on date of vesting but the balance two-third has to be used for purchase an annuity plan immediately. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps so the compliant is liable to be dismissed with cost.​

The complainant has adduced evidence and has filed some relevant documents. The O.Ps have not adduced any evidence and have filed some documents only. Ld. Lawyer of both parties have filed written arguments and have made oral arguments also.

On perusal of the pleadings of both sides and verifying the documents on record the following points are pertinent to discuss to determine the case.

POINTS FOR DETERMIATION

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.s i) & ii):  Both the points are interrelated to each other and so they are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

It is admitted that the complainant has purchased the policy bearing No. 0079884394 from the O.Ps on 28.12.2007 under annual premium of Rs. 50,000 and has deposited four premiums regularly i.e. a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000 and the date of vesting of the policy was 28.12.2012. Now, the allegation is concentrated only point as to whether the complainant is entitled to get full amount deposited by him as prayed for.

We have heard the Ld. Lawyers for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. The correspondence letters of the complainant indicate that the complainant went to the office of the O.Ps to surrender the policy firstly on 10.05.2012 i.e. before the date of vesting of the policy but she was requested by the official of the O.Ps not to surrender the policy as the maturity date was knocking at the door and she was assured about the good returns after maturity. Besides, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the agent of the company neither disclosed the terms and condition of the policy in question at the time of taking it nor the documents were handed over to the complainant for the purpose of reading the same before purchasing the policy. It was further submitted that the O.P had sold the policy in question keeping the complainant in dark by projecting huge profit. On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the O.Ps submitted that the complete policy documents containing the terms and conditions were duly delivered to the complainant and the complainant could have applied for cancelation of the policy within 15 days free lock period from the receipt of the policy but she did not do so.  

However, it is admitted that the complainant had deposited four annual premium of Rs. 50,000 each i.e. a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000. After that the complainant discontinued the payment of regular premium and wanted to surrender the policy. Accordingly, the complainant went to the office of the O.Ps firstly on 10.05.2012 and sent letters to the O.Ps on 31.01.2013, 06.03.2013, 12.11.2013, 21.01.2014, 31.01.2014 and 13.02.2014 which were received an acknowledged by the O.Ps also. Therefore as per​ section 10(c)(ii) of terms and conditions of the policy documents submitted by the O.Ps the complainant is entitled to get fund value after deducting the surrender charges of 2% on regular premium. But we are unable to calculate the current fund value of the policy as neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have submitted the current account statement before this Forum regarding the policy in question. Accordingly, this Forum directed the O.Ps to submit the up to date statement of account of the policy. But the O.Ps have not obeyed the order of the court. Hence, we have decided to settle the claim of the complainant as per Regulations 2010 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority which were notified vide Notification dated 01/07/2010 i.e. much before the cause of action accrued to the complainant in question in the year 2012. As per Regulation 7, I.R.D.A Regulations 2010, “where the policy is discontinued during the policy year 4, maximum discontinuation charges for policies having annualized premium above Rs. 25,000 will be lower of 2% of annualized premium or fund value on the date of discontinuation subject to maximum of Rs. 2,000.. and the O.Ps could not charge any other charges except those mentioned above.  Since the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2lakhs for the policy in question as premium for 4 years to the O.Ps, according to the Regulation extracted above she is entitled to get Rs. 1,98,000 (2,00,000 – 2,000) but the O.Ps were agreed to pay one-third of amount available on date of vesting and informed that the rest two-third has to be used for purchase of an annuity plan. Even later in written argument the O.Ps were denied to pay any amount to the complainant taking plea of lapsed of the policy. But in the correspondence letter of the O.Ps nowhere it is mentioned that the policy were in lapsed condition. Such type of activity of the O.Ps are illegal in the eyes of law. We find deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In view of the above the case stands in part. Points No. i) and ii), thus, stands in favour of the complainant.

Proper fees have been paid.

            Hence, 

O R D E R E D                                        

that C.F Case No. 31/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against

O.Ps in part.

The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs 1,98,000 to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of vesting of the policy No. 0079884394 i.e. on and from 28.12.2012 to the date of actual payment. The O.Ps also directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as litigation cost to the complainant. All such payment shall be made within one month from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to exercise this order as per Law and Procedure.

A copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately.