BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 190 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 06.07.2015.
Date of Order: 26.04.2019.
Om Parkash Sharma son of Shri Parbhu Dayal Sharma, resident of Shivaji Marg, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yearavada, Pune-411006 through its CEO.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance, SCF-7, 1st floor, Panchayat Pocket, Zoo Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Lalit Pardhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Jitender Tanwar, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a policy No.001093604 on 14.9.2005 from OP No. 2 for a sum assured Rs.2,00,000/- by paying premium of Rs.20,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant has deposited the premium amount upto 2007 vide receipt No.404402 & 6683404 dated 17.9.2006 and 6.9.2007 through cheque respectively and after that not deposited any premium towards the above said policy. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase of policy insurance advisor assured that if the complainant want to dis- continue the policy, all the deposited will be refused alongwith interest as well as incentive after three years. It is further alleged that the complainant has contacted the OP at Bhiwani for surrender of above said policy and also contracted on toll free No.18002337272, but no fruitful result. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. It is alleged that the policy in question was issued strictly in accordance with the proposal form dated 9.9.2004 signed and submitted by the complainant in normal course of insurance business and complainant opted for Unit Linked Regular Premium “Unit Gain” policy with premium payment term of 11 years & benefit term of 16 years. It is further alleged that neither any maturity claim has fallen due nor has the applicant submitted any request for availing the surrender value under the policy, the question of making any payment to the applicant does not arise. It is further alleged that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 14.9.2005 and the original policy bond containing express & agreed terms & conditions of the contract of insurance was sent to him, the receipt whereof was never disputed. It is further alleged that the payment of 3 yearly premiums under the policy without raising any disputes clearly indicates that complainant was fully aware and satisfied with the terms of the insurance contract. It is further alleged that the complainant never disputed the terms and conditions of the policy for more than 11 years and he still enjoying the risk cover to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from other benefits. It is further alleged that as per Policy Holders’ Protections Regulations, 2002 and he was dissatisfied with the terms & conditions of the policy, he should have submitted written notice to OPs to cancel the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision. It is further alleged that he did not pay yearly premiums due 14.9.2008 & onwards though having opted to pay yearly regular premiums for 11 years. It is further alleged that the complainant was given 5 years revival period, but he did not pay the overdue premiums and even then the policy in question was kept in force by effecting premium holiday as indicated in the contract of insurance. It is further alleged that no request for surrender value was ever submitted by complainant, thus, the policy is still continuing for full risk cover strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. It is further alleged that the complainant, however, may submit a written request for permissible surrender value along with the required formalities/documents for availing the said surrender value, if he desires so. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 in his evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record affidavit as Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to R8 in support of their case and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant believing the OPs invested the amount of Rs. 60,000/-, but the OPs have misguided him. Ld. counsel for the complainant further contended that the complainant approached the OPs for surrender of the policy, but the OPs failed in refunding the same. He has further contended that in this way, the Ops were having dishonest intention from the very beginning and as such, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest. He further contended that in this way, the Ops were having dishonest intention from the very beginning and as such, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 60,000/- & also for compensation for mental agony and harassment. He placed his reliance upon FA No.129 of 2014 titled as Surinder Kumar Singal Vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 19.6.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT Chandigarh.
7. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has reiterated the contents of the written statement. He has contended that complainant has failed in withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision. He further contended that no request for surrender value was ever submitted by complainant, thus, the policy is still continuing for full risk cover strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance as there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is admitted fact that the complainant has got issued insurance policy in question from the OPs. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited three yearly premiums each of Rs.20,000/- and thereafter he stopped paying the same and filed this complaint. It is also admitted by the OPs that the policy in question still continuing. Thus, the plea taken by the OPs that the present complaint is time barred is not tenable at all, because they themselves admitted that the policy in question still in running condition. The further plea taken by OPs is that complainant has never requested for surrender value of the policy. The OPs have also taken plea that the complainant may submit a written request for permissible surrender value alongwith the required documents for availing the surrender value, if he desires so. So, in our view, the OPs are ready to pay the surrender value of the policy to the complainant as admitted by them in their written statement in Para No.10. From the perusal of policy, it is clear that as per policy clause No. 3): -
Surrender “the Surrender Value of the policy will be equal to the bid value of the units calculated in the same manner as if the Units are to be cancelled. The policy shall thereafter terminate upon payment of the full surrender value by the company. The policy will acquire a surrender value after payment of 3 full year’s premiums”.
So, it is very much clear that the complainant is entitled to get back his money deposited with OP company. From the above said facts, it is clear that the Ops did not refund the amount of Rs. 60,000/- and deceived the complainant. Moreover, the OPs have taken the hard earned money from complainant for investment purpose in market and the complainant after paying this amount to OPs has never taken any benefit or service from them. The OPs are still enjoying the usufruct of this huge amount. Further the complainant after paying 3 annual premiums did not prefer to continue with the policy by not depositing the next premium towards the policy nor he specifically communicated to the OPs for surrender of the policy and instead filed the present complaint, so he is not entitled to any compensation for the alleged mental agony and harassment. It is also considered by us that the OPs have also borne some processing expenditure i.e. commission of agent etc. etc. at the time of issuing the insurance policy. In view of above circumstances and in the interest of justice, the complainant is entitled to get refund at least an amount of Rs. 45,000/- being 75% of the premium deposited by him with the OPs.
10. Moreover, Insurance Companies deliberately with malafide intention does not refund the hard earned money of its consumers in time and harassed them without any reason. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation for the consumers and strict proof as required under the Indian Evidence Act does not required to be proved under the C. P. Act before the Consumer Courts. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed with costs and the OPs are directed to:-
i. To refund Rs.45,000/- (Forty five thousand only) being the 75% amount of deposited amount, to complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii) The complainant is also directed to submit all the requisite documents required for surrendering the policy in question to the OPs, within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
iii) To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of deposit of documents by the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 26.04.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
