West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2012/139

SMT. BIMALA RAI, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 139/S/2012.                DATED : 02.03.2016.            

 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SMT. BIMALA RAI,  

  W/O Sri Sam Tshering, aged about 50 years,

  business by occupation, resident of Sevoke

  Road, P.O. & P.S. – Siliguri (above New

  Nanking Bar), Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.

                                                              

O.P.            1.                                : THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

  GE Plaza, Airport Road,

  Yerwada, Pune, Pin – 411 006.

 

2.                               : THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

  City Plaza, Sevoke Road,

  Siliguri – 734 001,

  

3.                               : THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,

  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,                     

  City Plaza, Sevoke Road,

  Siliguri – 734 001.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Goutam Basu, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

 

 

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

 

Smt. Bimala Rai, the complainant, is engaged in Travel Agency Business at Siliguri.  She has invested Rs.6,35,000/- on insurance premium under Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Century Plus (Non Participating Unit Linked Plan), assured sum being Rs.31,75,000/-, of Policy No.0097051273 Product Code : 93,UIN : 116L053V01, at City Plaza, Siliguri. 

The policy administrative charges of Rs.4,630.21/- on the 1^st premium of Rs.6,35,000/- have deducted per month, which is 1.75% of sum assured i.e. of Rs.31,75,000/-. 

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

 

 

Despite the complainant has reduced the annual premium to Rs.25,000/- in the next year with assured sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the administrative charges have deducted on Rs.4,630.21/- on the previous assured sum of Rs.31,75,000/- in stead of Rs.1,25,000/-.  Hence, the dispute has arisen.  

She then has sent a complaint letter on 16.10.2012 requesting for refund of the excess amount, but the OP No.1 has informed that the charges would remain same as per the product specification.  She has then served legal notice, but to no effect. 

She alleged that it is an unfair trade practice, though the OPs have mentioned that it as per the policy bond.  But she complained that they were not in clear terms at time of opening the policy and she has been sustaining wrongful loss by such unfair trade practice. 

She has paid administrative charges since April, 2008 and the cause of action has arisen on 21.04.2008 when the policy was issued. 

Now she has prayed for redressal of the grievances to refund the excess amount, Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation and mental agony, Rs.84,009.68/- as interest since April, 2008, cost of proceeding etc., from OP Nos.1 – 3.  

OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant and placed three principle.  The said three principles are 1) “Allegatio contra factum non est admittenda”, 2) “Nullus commodum capere potest ex sua injuria propria”, and 3) “Suppresio very and suggestio falsi”.  It is positive version of the OPs that Policy Administration Charge will be 1.75% per annum of sum assured and will be deducted at each monthly anniversary by the cancellation of units.  This charge is not subject to revision”.  It is also case of the OPs that complainant had the agreement with each and every condition imposed in the policy document.  The complainant did not opt for free look consideration of the policy.  Moreover, in a reply, the OP informed the complainant that “We would like to keep you informed that the Policy administration charges are deducted from the first your sum-assured and not the decreased one.  Even if you reduce your premium automatically sum-assured will also

 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

 

reduce to 5 times of your reduced premium amount, however the charges will remain the same as it was earlier and it cannot be changed”.  As the policy has been taken by the complainant with full knowledge and understanding terms and condition so, at this time complainant cannot take the plea of no contract.  The OPs have cited one principle of law dictated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court “The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties.  Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.  The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.”    

OPs have further stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.    

Accordingly, it is prayed by OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 to pass order for dismissal of the complaint case. 

 

Points for decision

 

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?              

 

Complainant has filed the following documents :

1.       Photocopy of Insurance Policy Schedule of Smt. Bimala Rai.

2.       Photocopy of Letter of Communication of the Complainant Smt. Bimala Rai. 

3.       Photocopy of Legal Notice issued by Smt. Moon Basu, Advocate. 

4.       Photocopy of e-mail of send by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited.

OPs have filed the following document :-

1.       Photocopy of letter issued by the Ward Councillor of Ward No.40 of Siliguri Municipal Corporation.

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief with affidavit. 

Complainant has filed written notes of argument. 

OPs have filed evidence-in-chief and written notes of argument.

 

 

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

 

 

Decision with reason.

 

 

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is admitted position that the complainant took the policy bearing no.0097051273 with sum assured of Rs.31,75,000/-.  The same was reduced to Rs.1,25,000/-, policy term was for 10 years.  Date of commencement of risk was 21.04.2008.  The complainant paid first premium of Rs.6,25,000/-, complainant paid consecutive premium of Rs.25,000/- each on 11.05.09 and 10.05.2010.  There is no dispute that the complainant is not a policy holder under the OP and did not pay any premium.  Dispute lying with payment of Policy Administrative Charge per month which is 1.75% per annum of sum assured.  At the first time, complainant paid Rs.6,25,000/- for his policy being no…….51273 and policy charge was Rs.4,630.21/- per month which is 1.75% per annum of sum assured.  Next year, complainant reduce his annual premium of Rs.25,000/- when sum assured is Rs.1,25,000/-, but the Administrative Charge has been deducted at Rs.4,630.21/- per month.  The complainant argued that Administrative Charge of Rs.4,630.21/- per month on the sum assured of Rs.31,75,000/- cannot be taken on the sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/-.  Complainant contended that the Policy Administrative Charge on Rs.31,75,000/- may be deducted @1.75% per annum, but on the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- the Policy Administrative Charge will be @ 1.75% per annum.  Thus, the complainant did not dispute the Policy Administrative Charge @ 1.75 % per annum of sum assured.  But in all years, and in all amount onwards, when sum assured has been lessened at Rs.1,25,000/-, then Policy Administrative Charge will not be Rs.4,630.21/- per month, but will be less than Rs.4,630.21/-.  Thus the main contention of the complainant is that he is ready to pay Policy Administrative Charge @ 1.75% on the sum assured.  For the first time on Rs.31,75,000/- and later on Rs.1,25,000/- but the rate of same i.e., @ 1.75% per annum.  But contrary to the complainant’s claim OPs state that he shall take Policy Administrative Charge on all amounts started from Rs.31,75,000/- and next amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.  The cases of both sides are considered.

 

Contd……P/5

-:5:-

 

Policy Administrative Charge @ 1.75% per annum on the sum assured Rs.31,75,000/- may be permitted and acceptable, but  the Policy Administrative Charge on the less amount of Rs.1,25,000/- cannot be taken as calculated in former case.  The Policy Administrative Charge on the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- must be calculated @ 1.75% per annum.  In other words in a very simple language the OPs shall take Policy Administrative Charge @ 1.75% per annum on Rs.31,75,000/- and shall take Policy Administrative Charge @ 1.75% per annum on Rs.1,25,000/-.

The converse argument is that Policy Administrative Charge in case of Rs.31,75,000/- and in case of Rs.1,25,000/- @1.75% per annum                 will be same i.e., Rs.4,630.21/- per month cannot be accepted and against the public policy and comes within the purview of Unfair Trade Practice. 

After getting the complaint from the complainant the OPs have enough time to rectify the same rate of interest as discussed above.  But the OPs did not apply in mind and continued their calculation as per their own whims as stated by OPs in Evidence-in-Chief and in written version.

Accordingly, the complainant under compelling circumstances, approached before this Forum praying Redressal. 

After deep deliberation over both sides’ case and facts, this Forum is of strong conviction that complainant’s case succeeds and the complainant is entitled to get relief as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund the excess amount of Policy Administrative Charge.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.84,009/- being the total interest from the period April, 2008.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.           

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                  O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.139/S/2012 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part against the OPs with cost.

Contd……P/6

-:6:-

 

 

The complainant is entitled to get refund the excess amount of Policy Administrative Charge  from the OP Nos.1 to 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.84,009/- being the total interest from the period April, 2008 from the OP Nos.1 to 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and sufferings from the OP Nos.1 to 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 to 3.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay the excess amount of Policy Administrative Charge to the complainant within 45 days of this order.

 The OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.84,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant being the total interest from the period April, 2008 within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1 to 4, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental agony, pain and sufferings within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1 to 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

In case of default of payment, the complainant is further entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                          -Member-                        -President-