Haryana

Rohtak

152/2014

Shri Ram Sanehi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baja Allianz General Insurance Company. - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. 152/2014
 
1. Shri Ram Sanehi
Shri Ram Sanehi s/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Ghooskani Post office Khidwali District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Baja Allianz General Insurance Company.
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., (Branch location Khidwali Code no.8055 Model Town, Dalal Building, Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 152.

                                                          Instituted on     : 24.04.2014.

                                                          Decided on       : 21.08.2015.

 

Shri Ram Sanehi s/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Ghooskani Post office Khidwali District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., (Branch location Khidwali Code no.8055 Model Town, Dalal Building, Rohtak.

 

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

 

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

                                      ORDER

 

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

 

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party vide policy no.0220778073 in February 2009 with annual installment of Rs.5000/- and the last payment was due on February 2013 and the date of maturity was 03.02.2014. It is averred that on 19.03.2014 the opposite party had deposited  an amount of Rs.19351/- in his account and he complained about the same to the opposite party and the opposite party on 15.04.4014 had paid the amount of Rs.4980/- but the same was Rs.669/- less than the total deposited amount of Rs.25000/-. It is averred that as per the policy, the complainant was also entitled for the interest but the same was not paid to him. As such it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to  pay the balance amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its  written reply submitting therein that as per the policy, on an individual Member being alive on the Maturity Date, the account value shall be paid to the policyholder as maturity benefit and the Individual account for that member shall be closed. The minimum maturity guarantee is the total net premiums paid till maturity date less sum of scheme administration fee deducted till maturity date, provided all dues premiums have been paid by the policyholder for the respective member statement. It is averred that the answering opposite party has paid the maturity claim strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. It is averred that an amount of Rs.19351/- stands credited to the Puunjab National bank Account number 80550100003440 of the complainant dated 19.03.2014 and subsequently Rs.4980/- was admittedly received by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of all her claims under membership number 0220778073 as per the express and agreed terms of the policy. It is averred that the question of payment of any interest does not arise as no such promise to pay any interest is the part of the express terms of the contract. The complainant is as such not entitled to any balance amount of Rs.669/- or any interest as alleged.  It is, therefore prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

 3.                         Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case it is not disputed that as per certificate of insurance Ex.C1, the complainant was insured with the opposite party and that the complainant has paid all the installments in due time. The contention of the complainant is that he had deposited the amount of Rs.25000/- in total and as per terms and conditions of the policy, he was entitled to the amount of Rs.25000/- alongwith interest but the opposite party has paid only the amount of Rs.24511/- and the remaining amount of Rs.669/- as well as interest has been withheld by the opposite party.  On the other hand, contention of opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, whole amount has been paid to the complainant and she is not entitled for any amount.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per certificate of Insurance Ex.C1 under the head benefits payable on member reaching to Maturity Date : “On an individual member reaching to the maturity date, the individual members account value can be withdrawn. The minimum maturity guarantee is the total net premiums paid till maturity date less sum of scheme administration fee deducted till maturity date, provided all dues premiums have been paid by the policyholder for the respective member.” As such as per the terms and conditions of the policy, after deducting the administration fee, the amount of Rs.24511/- has already been paid to the complainant and it is nowhere mentioned in the policy that the amount will be paid with interest. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, present complaint stands dismissed.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

9.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.08.2015.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

 

                                                          …………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member                                                                                                                                        

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.