STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH APPEAL NO.24 OF 2011 Date of Institution : 1.2.2011 Date of Decision : 20.9.2011 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 139-140, Second Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. .…Appellant. Vs. Amar Nath Bansal, Booth No.75, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. …. Respondent. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Present: Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent in person alongwith Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order, dated 29.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 155 of 2010, vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% from 17.9.2008, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which, the OP was liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the date of filing the complaint, till the order was fully complied with. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the agent of the OP approached the complainant for Life Insurance Policy. The said agent specifically told him that investment of Rs.10,000/- per year, would fetch Rs.45,000/-, after the expiry of three years. The complainant paid the regular installments for three years and, thereafter, he approached the OP for enquiring about the amount. The OP told him that he would get Rs.19,877/- only. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if three years premiums were paid, then no surrender charge was applicable, but the OP did not adhere to the said terms and conditions. The complainant wrote letters dated 2.6.2008, 17.6.2009 and 10.12.2009 to the OP, but to no avail. The complainant personally visited the office of the OP, but till date, no amount was refunded to him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, it was admitted that the policy, in question, was issued in the name of the complainant. It was stated that the policy (Unit Gain) was directly connected with the share market. It was further stated that because of economic melt down, in the International market, the price of the units issued to the complainant, under the policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of the OP. It was further stated that the policy was issued, on the basis of proposal form, filled in and signed by the complainant, and he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the policy, if the terms thereof were not acceptable to him, but he failed to do so. It was denied that any request was received from the complainant. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6. Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP, filed the instant appeal. 7. We have heard Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the appellant, respondent in person alongwith Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, and have perused the record, carefully. 8. The learned proxy Counsel for the appellant/OP contended that the policy namely UNIT GAIN PLUS which was issued to the complainant, was directly related with the share market and because of economic melt down in the International market, which also adversely affected the share market of India, the price of shares of even big companies fell down. Similarly, the price of units issued to the complainant, under the policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of any particular individual. Moreover, the unit price fluctuates day by day and sometimes it goes up and sometimes it becomes very low. Due to instability in the market, it cannot be said what would be the rate of unit at the time of surrender by the respondent, if he choses so. It was further submitted that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate that, in fact, the original policy bond was with the complainant, which he did not place, on record, deliberately, wherein, it was mentioned that the policy was related to the share market. It was further contended that the learned District Forum further erred in not appreciating that the said complaint was time barred because the policy, in question, was obtained by the complainant on 16.9.2005, whereas, the present complaint was filed on 9.3.2010. It was further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, 15 days time was given to the complainant, which is known as ‘Free Look Period’ as per the guidelines of IRDA and if he want to say anything with regard to the terms and conditions, and if those were not acceptable to him, he could ask for the cancellation of the policy but he failed to exercise that option. It was further submitted that there was no fault, on the part of OP. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the main dispute between the parties is only with regard to the refund sought by the complainant, after 3 years of deposit of the premium of Rs.10,000/-, totaling to Rs.30,000/-. The agent of the OP told him that the investment of Rs.10,000/- per year would fetch Rs.45,000/- after the expiry of three years. After three years, he approached the OP to know about the amount but its representative told that he would get Rs.19,877/- only. It was further contended that, as per the terms and conditions, no surrender charges were applicable to him but the OP did not adhere to the same. He further submitted that C-3 and C-4 dated 20.6.2008 respectively and 24.6.2008 are the copies of the letters written to the OP, by the complainant, seeking refund of his money but no action was taken by the OP. 10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant took insurance policy in the year 2005 from the OP and paid a premium of Rs.10,000/- per year for three years. Thus, he deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- in total with the OP. It was a unit gain policy, which was directly linked with the share market. At the time of payment of initial premium of Rs.10,000/-, the units were issued to the complainant, as per the prevailing market rate, after deducting the necessary expenses like service tax etc., as per the guidelines of IRDA. The initial unit statement supplied to the complainant clearly depicted, as to how many units were allotted to him, and what was the value of each unit. This statement was not intentionally produced alongwith the complaint or during the course of his evidence. Even the complainant failed to produce the Insurance Policy alongwith the terms and conditions before the District Forum. These documents were eminently essential for the effective decision of the dispute. After getting permission from this Commission, the appellant/OP placed on record Annexure A-1 initial unit, and A-2 statement of account, as on 31.1.2011, original policy schedule and the original proposal form. Had these documents been produced before the District Forum, the District Forum would have been able to apply mind to the same to arrive at a correct decision. Thus, the appeal is liable to be accepted and the case deserves to be remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision thereof, after taking into consideration A-1, A-2 and other documents, indicated in the foregoing paragraph, and hearing the Counsel for the parties. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum (I), UT, Chandigarh on 12.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M. The record of the District Forum alongwith the aforesaid documents be sent to the concerned District Forum, immediately. 12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. Pronounced. 20th September, 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER rb
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
