DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Anil Bhardwaj r/o House No.3-A, Housing Board Colony, Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.215-217, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.                 Dauphin Touch Network Pvt. Ltd., A-212C/304, Tirupati Plaza, Street No.1, Shakarpur, Delhi through its Regional Head.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Varun Chawla, Counsel for OP No.1

                        OP No.2 exparte

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Anil Bhardwaj has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

(i)                to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.

(ii)             to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation

(iii)           to pay Rs.9,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the agent of opposite party No.1 approached him and explained about the salient features of a policy known as Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain.  Accordingly, the complainant was issued life insurance policy No.0066592591 dated 19.9.2007 having annual premium of Rs.10,000/-.

                   The complainant regularly paid the premiums of Rs.10,000/- for three years and thereafter approached the opposite party about its status regarding surrender.  He was issued the statement (C-2) showing fund value of Rs.27,296/-.  Subsequently the complainant approached the opposite party for the surrender of the policy and he was again given an account statement (C-3) showing the fund value of Rs.27,730/-. But he was told that the policy is in lapsed state as the first premium draft dated 6.9.2007 could not be encashed by the opposite party in time and they returned the same to him for revalidation.  The complainant objected to the same and even offered to pay Rs.10,000/- in cash but the opposite party flatly refused.  The complainant thereafter also served a legal notice dated 27.1.2011 but to no avail.  According to the complainant, he was duly issued the policy and if the same had lapsed due to non payment of the first premium then the opposite party should not have accepted the subsequent premiums also, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above

3.                           Opposite party No.1 in its written statement admitted that the policy in question was issued to the complainant.   However it has been stated that the complainant proposed for the policy after fully understanding its terms and conditions.  It has been stated that according to the terms and conditions, policy can be surrendered only after completion of 3 years provided the premiums for first 3 full years had been paid and if the premium was not paid on the due date, the policy lapses.  It has further been stated that the policy lapsed due to non payment of premium and the complainant was fully aware about the same.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           Opposite party No.2 in its separate written reply admitted that the policy in question was got issued by it from opposite party No.1.   It has also been admitted that immediately upon receipt of payment towards the first installment of premium the same was paid to opposite party No.1 after which only the policy in question was issued.  It has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal qua it.  

                   After filing reply and evidence, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Admittedly the policy in question was issued to the complainant and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as first premium vide draft No.413230 dated 6.9.2007 which fact also find mention in the copy of the proposal form for life insurance (R-1) annexed by opposite party No.1 itself.  It was on the basis of this proposal that the policy in question was issued in favour of the complainant.  Admittedly the complainant also paid two other premiums and thus paid premiums for three consecutive years. 

7.                           The case of the complainant is that after three years when he went to opposite party No.1 to surrender the policy and get the surrender value he was declined the same on the ground that the premium for the first year was not paid.  On the other hand, the stand of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant failed to pay the regular premium for the first year due to which the policy lapsed.

8.                           Annexure C-2 and C-3 are the copies of the statements of account as on 2.3.2010 and 1.11.2010 respectively.  There is no mention in any of these statements that the payment towards the first premium was not received.  It is not the case of the opposite party that the draft in question was lost or was received by it late.  Had it been so, it would have certainly written about the same to the complainant so that timely action could have been taken. 

9.                           On the other hand, opposite party No.2 in its reply dated 8.2.2011 (C-7) to the legal notice of the complainant, as also in its written statement, has specifically stated that the amount of the first installment was duly submitted by it with opposite party No.1.  Hence it is crystal clear that the amount towards the first premium was duly deposited with opposite party No.1.   

10.                       According to the complainant he had given the draft dated 6.9.2007 towards the first premium. This fact is not denied by the opposite party. Rather the same is corroborated from the proposal form. However, if due to the act of opposite party No.1 or its official(s) the draft in question towards the first premium could not be encashed, then it is the opposite party who should suffer for the same and not the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 cannot not be allowed to take shelter behind some clause in the policy terms and conditions which could only be admissible in the event of default of the complainant which, as is seen from the facts and circumstances narrated above,  is not so in the present case.

11.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed qua opposite party No.1 only and it is directed as under :-

(i)                to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

(ii)             to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him

(iii)           to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses

12.                       This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at (i) & (ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

13.                       Complaint qua opposite party No.2 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

14.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.11.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg