DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 503/12
Shri Ratan Singh
S/o Shri Lakhpat Singh
R/o 10/117, Patel Gali,
Vishwas Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi – 32 ….Complainants
Vs.
- Allianz Bajaj Life Ins. Co. Ltd.
Through Branch Manager
G-85, 1st Floor, Madhu Vihar
Delhi – 110 092
- Shri Rahul chopra (Ins. Agent)
(Code No. 5111000127)
Allianz Bajaj Life Ins. Co. Ltd.
G-85, 1st Floor, Madhu Vihar
Delhi – 110 092 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 26.07.2012
Judgment Reserved for : 07.09.2016
Judgment Passed on : 09.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Ratan Singh has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against Allianz Bajaj Life Ins. Co. Ltd. for refund of premium of Rs. 60,000/- with interest; Rs. 50,000/- compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain alongwith cost of Rs. 12,000/- as litigation charges
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant was approached by Shri Rahul Chopra, Insurance Agent (OP-2) in the month of August 2003 for having the medi-claim policy of M/s. Allianz Bajaj Life Ins. Co. Ltd. (OP-1).
He was assured that for purchase of policy for a term of 20 years, he would get 10% of sum assured amount after 4 years, 15% of sum assured after 8 years, 25% of sum assured after 12 years, 25% of sum assured after 16 years and 50% of sum assured amount at time of maturity. On his assurance, the complainant purchased policy no. 0002794161 for 20 years for an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- from OP-2. Mode of premium payment was half yearly, which was Rs. 4487/-. The complainant used to deposit his premium regularly on time from 2003 to 2006, but in the year 2007, he could no deposit his premium on time.
On 29.06.2007, the complainant went to the office of OP-1 and deposited installment of Rs. 9,464/- with late fee and on 22.03.2010, he again deposited an amount of Rs. 42,550/- with late fee because he could not deposit premium on time. he again could not deposit the premium on time and when he went to the office of OP-1 on 17.01.2012, he was told that he has to pay Rs. 9,337/- with medical check-up.
On 15.02.2012, when he went to the office of OP-1, he was sent back saying that one another medical check-up was necessary for deposit the premium. Again, on 12.03.2012, when the complainant went to the office of OP-1, he was again asked for another medical check-up and was sent back without deposit the premium. Thus, it has been stated that the conduct of OPs was highly illegal, uncalled, unwarranted and against the natural justice. Thus, he has prayed for direction to OPs to deposit the unpaid premium or refund the premium of Rs. 60,000/- with interest; Rs. 50,000/- compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain alongwith cost of Rs. 12,000/- as litigation charges.
Notice of the complaint was given to OPs, who appeared but did not file the WS. Though, they have not been proceeded ex-parte, but the fact that they have not filed their WS, it amounts to having no defence of OPs.
3. In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit. He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. He has also got exhibited legal notice (Ex. CW1/1), postal receipts (Ex. CW1/2) and photocopy of policy bond (Ex. CW1/1-3).
4. We have perused the evidence on record as none appeared on behalf of both the parties to argue.
If a look is made to Ex. CW1/3, it is noticed that under the general conditions, Clause 2 is in respect of ‘Reinstatement of the Policy’. It seems that a policy which has lapsed for non-payment of premium after the days of grace may be reinstated subject to the conditions such as the application for reinstatement to be made within 5 years from the date of first premium and before the maturity date of policy; the applicant/life assured will furnish satisfactory evidence of health of the life assured; the arrears are paid together with interest etc.etc. Thus, from this, it comes out that reinstatement of the policy can be made by the insurance company. It is the case of the complainant that he was regular in depositing the premium from the year 2003 to 2006, but in the year 2007, he could not deposit the same.
Subsequently, he got deposited an amount of Rs. 9464 on 29.06.2007 and Rs. 42,550/- on 22.03.2010. After that, again, he could not deposit his premium on time. He was asked to deposit the premium with medical check-up, however, later on, he has not been given the chance to get the policy renewed.
5. It seems that the complainant has been negligent in depositing the premium in time and due to that, the policy has lapsed two times. Since the complainant himself was negligent in depositing the premium in time, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP. Since, there has been no deficiency on the part of OP, the complaint of the complainant cannot be said to be proved. That being so, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
