Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/225

Kishore Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianj Life Ins.co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 225 dated 23.04.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 06.09.2022.

 

Kishore Pathak Age 63 years S/o. Late G.C. Pathak, Retired as General Manager HR from Coal India Ltd. Public Sector Enterprise, Now residing at Village Panjdhera, Jagatpura, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Mobile No.79868-04538.                                                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006. Maharashtra through authorized person.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Kishore Pathak in person

For OPs                          :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 24.09.2012, the complainant purchased one policy No.0281300290 from the OPs with sum assured of Rs.8,00,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year as premium up to the year 2017. The complainant deposited all the installments up to the year 2017. In the month of June 2019, the complainant approached the OPs online to shift his money to safe fund. At that time, the fund value of his policy was Rs.9,94,000/- as the OPs had invested the policy money in the market which was going down every day. However, the website of the OP company was not responding. In this regard, a complaint was also submitted to the customer care of the OPs but despite that no action was taken.

2.                It is further alleged that on 04.07.2019, the complainant approached the office of the OPs situated at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana to surrender his policy. At that time, the value of the policy was Rs.9,72,802/-. The policy was surrendered on 04.07.2019 itself. However, on 06.07.2019, the complainant received a call from the head quarter of the OPs regarding withdrawal of the amount of Rs.9,72,840/-. After a prolonged discussion, the person on phone suggested to shift the amount into a safe/bond fund where the money would not reduce and the complainant would get the growth of 7% to 8% and he would get Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-  extra in addition to the maturity amount in the year 2022. However, the complainant did not want to invest in the said bonds/funds without consulting his financial adviser. Therefore, the complainant did not accept the said offer. On 10.07.2019, the complainant received a message from the OPs that the fund value was Rs.9,40,000/-. On 14.07.2019, the complainant immediately submitted one request to the customer car of the OPs and also sent an email to Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Tarun. On 29.07.2019, the complainant visited the office of the OPs at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana and discussed the issue with the branch manager of the OPs who suggested him to submit another withdrawal request. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a request for making the payment of Rs.9,72,802/-. On 13.08.2019, the complainant receive an SMS on his phone that an amount of Rs.8,90,401.44 has been transferred in his account. As a matter of fact, the OPs took decision on their own to continue the policy instead of making the payment of Rs.9,72,820/- on 04.07.2019. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is legally entitled to get the payment of Rs.9,72,820/- which was the fund value of his policy a on 04.07.2019. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the difference of Rs.82,419/-  with interest @10% per annum as per the fund value as on 04.07.2019 and further the OPs be made to pay Rs.40,000/- extra amount on maturity as per policy along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. According to the OPs, on 02.09.2017, the complainant sent an email to the OPs to know about the fund value of the policy. Thereafter, upon submission of surrender form, the OPs issued an acknowledgment letter dated 04.07.2019 informing the complainant that his fund value as on 03.07.2019 was Rs.9,72,802.74. Along with the surrender form, the complainant also submitted an additional declaration form as his name was mentioned as Kishor Pathak while in the bank account his name was Kishore Pathak. The OPs have further pleaded that on 11.07.2019, the complainant again approached the OPs and expressed his willingness to continue with policy and requested for withdrawal of surrender.  Thereafter, the complainant again submitted surrender withdrawal form on 29.07.2019. Acting upon the said surrender form, the OP transferred through NEFT an amount of Rs.8,90,401/-  being the fund value of the policy as on 30.07.2019. Since the policy was a unit linked policy and the share market was going down, unit price has decreased from Rs.32.1160 to Rs.29.5789 as on 29.07.2019. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant filed replication reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement filed by the OPs.

5.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-9 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amit Khanna, Manager Legal and Compliance of the OPs along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP9 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and the counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

8.                During the course of arguments, the complainant has argued that he never withdrew the surrender request made on 04.07.2019. Therefore, the OPs were bound to pay him the fund value of Rs.9,72,802.74. The complainant has further contended that he never subtitled the request Ex. OP7 for continuation of the policy and the OPs wrongly forced him to submit another surrender form on 29.07.2019. Since the complainant had not withdrawn the surrender form submitted on 04.07.2019, the question of paying anything less than the fund value on 04.07.2019 does not arise. The complainant has further contended that the request Ex. OP7 does not bear his signatures and the same has been forged and fabricated by the OPs to grab the money of the complainant.

9.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that after submitting the surrender form on 04.067.2019, the complainant withdrew his request for surrender vide application Ex. OP7 which is duly signed by him wherein the complainant has candidly stated that he wanted to continue the policy. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that even otherwise if the complainant had not submitted the application Ex. OP7, he would not have furnished a fresh surrender form Ex. OP8 on 29.07.2-019. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that this clearly shows that the request for surrendering the policy made on 04.07.2019 was withdrawn and that is why the fresh request was made on 29.07.2019 and, therefore, the complainant has been rightly paid the fund value of the policy as on 29.07.2019.

10.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the complainant and counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record.

11.              The complainant claims that he did not withdraw his surrender form submitted on 04.07.2019 and neither submitted letter Ex. OP7 withdrawing the surrender request nr make a request to continue the policy. However, the complainant has placed on record another letter Annexure-5 wherein he has stated that after submitting the withdrawal request on 04.07.2019, he wanted to shift the maturity amount of Rs.9,72,802/-  to his bank. It is further stated in the letter Annexure-5 that in the meanwhile on 08.07.2019, he agreed to shift the amount of Rs.9,72,802/- to bond/safe fund but due to mistake on the part of the OPs, the money was not transferred to his bank nor shifted to the safe/bond fund and therefore, the said amount of Rs.9,72,802/- be paid to him as he has not withdrawn the application dated 04.07.2019 at any point of time.

12.              Having thoughtfully considered the matter, we are of the considered view that the complainant is taking contradictory stands. On one hand, he is claiming that he never withdrew the request for redemption made on 04.07.2019. At the same time in the letter Annexure-5, the complainant is claiming that he requested the OPs to shift the maturity amount of Rs.9.72,802/- to some bond/safe fund. However, no such request to shift the maturity amount to funds has been placed on the file. The complainant has further disowned the letter Ex. OP6 placed on record by the OPs whereby he withdrew the request submitted on 04.07.2019 claiming that the letter Ex. OP7 is forged and fabricated. However, in this regard, no worthwhile evidence has been led to prove that the letter Ex. OP7 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. Even otherwise, the allegations of forgery or fraud cannot be ascertained by this Commission which require recording of evidence in detail. However, considering the fact that the complainant himself submitted a surrender form Ex. OP8 on 29.07.2019 by itself belies the claim of the complainant. Had the complainant not withdrawn the surrender form dated 04.07.2019, he would not have submitted another surrender form Ex. OP8 on 29.07.2019. Since the complainant has already been paid the due amount as per the fund value of the policy as on 29.07.2019, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Kishore Pathak Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.                    CC/21/225

Present:       Complainant Sh. Kishore Pathak in person.

                   Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the OPs closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP9.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.