Complainant Mrs. Anjali Sen by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant was a policy holder being No. 0041343046 under the op and due to urgent need of money, complainant submitted the said policy to the op along with all original documents and the said op no.2 assured the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,37,617.65 paisa in writing on 15.05.2014 and as per request of the op no.2, complainant handed over her UCO Bank saving account number to the op no.2 for smooth and quick delivery of the surrender value in her bank account. On 30.05.2014 complainant received a sum of Rs. 4,04,320/- in her UCO Bank, savings Bank account No. 11300110006535 in place of Rs. 5,37,617.65 paisa.
After receiving the aforesaid surrendered amount of Rs. 4,04,320/- complainant and her husband rushed the office of the op no.2 to ask the reason of the aforesaid unjust payment but the op no.2 avoided the complainant with one after another pleas. Thereafter complainant submitted one written letter to the office of the op no.2 in writing on 18.06.2014 and op no.2 received the said letter from the hand of the complainant but refused to issue any receipt and acknowledgement in this connection. On receipt of the letter dated 18.06.2014, the op no.2 assured the complainant to make payment the balance amount of Rs. 1,33,297.65 within ten days but till date they have not made any point and finding no other alternative complainant sent a letter on 16.07.2014 under speed post with A/D addressed to the ops for recover of her balance amount of Rs. 1,33,297.65 paisa and the said letters dully delivered to the ops but in spite of all the ops failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,33,297.65 to the complainant till date and for such sort of negligent manner of service and for deficient manner of service, the present complaint filed by the complainant for redressal.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt that the complainant purchased the said policy and surrendered the same and after processing the surrender application, therefore an amount of Rs. 4,04,320/- being the surrender value was transmitted to the account of the complainant on 30.05.2014 and surrender value is determined as per the NAV value of the policy existing on the date of surrender and was not unjust and op never assured to the complainant that they shall have to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,33,297.65 within 10 days. But all other allegations are false and fabricated and the claim of the complainant is frivolous and there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the Surrender Request Acknowledgement Letter dated 15.05.2014 issued by the op, it is found that op reported to the complainant that surrender would be Rs. 5,37,617.65. But ultimately vide letter dated 30.05.2014, op reported that complainant is entitled to Rs. 4,04,320/- as surrender value as per NAV and that was no doubt deposited to the account of the complainant.
Now question is that for what reason op issued such Surrender Request Acknowledgement Letter noting that complainant is entitled to Rs. 5,37,617.65 paisa as surrender value and fact remains that complainant relied upon the letter dated 15.05.2014 by which op reported that surrender value based on the previous business day on 15.05.2014 and total payable amount of Rs. 5,37,617.65 paisa. But at the time of filing written version, complainant has submitted that when the discrepancy was raised by the complainant, op sent an email to who is the some of the complainant and submitted that their calculation was reviewed and obtained surrender value and payable amount is Rs. 4,04,320.01 paisa. Truth is that same was paid.
Fact remains that this policy was for 20 years terms, the premium was Rs. 1,00,000/- for twenty years and that policy was opened on 10.03.2007 and from the said policy, it is found that Sukhen Sen is the son of the complainant. So, considering that policy, it is clear that complainant after depositing three premiums for Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 did not continue the policy. Though as per terms and conditions of the policy, policy was for 20 years and payment of premium for 20 years at the rate Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. But admitted fact is that complainant did not continue that policy for the year 2009 and total payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- that is Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the year from 2007 to 2009 and for which the value of the policy Rs. 3,00,000/- was deducted as the policy was surrendered after lapse of three years and that policy for twenty years and fact remains that it was Capital Unit Gain Policy and for surrendering the same after lapse of three years, after depositing only three premiums from 2007 to 2009.
In fact complainant submitted the surrender said policy on 14.05.2014 that is also after lapse of five years from the date of last payment of premium in the year 2009 for which as per Capital Gain Unit Policy, the surrendered units were 19,823.2394 as on that date after 2009. Complainant did not pay yearly premium of Rs. 1,00,000/-. So, surrender was made during pendency of the policy and in fact after three years, those policies were lapsed. So, surrendered units were calculated as on the date of last premium paid in the year 2009 and for dis-continuation of the said policy, penalty and interest i.e. Rs. 2574.975 was deducted and accordingly total number of units 17248.26 was counted and unit price was fixed 23.4412 as on 26.05.2014. So, the amount was of Rs. 4,04,320.5 and it was specifically mentioned in the email informed to on 30.07.2014. But anyhow this factor has not been explained by the complainant in his complaint.
Practically Ld. Lawyer for the complainant did not file any document regarding policy, regarding payment slip etc. and also did not exhibit to any other paper which were submitted to the op for closing the policy etc. But they only relied upon first acknowledgement slip. In the said acknowledgement slip dated 15.05.2014, it is found that regular unit was shown 20725.870 and it was shown as equity index Event No.2 but as per provision of law equity index No.2 is applicable in case of a matured insurance policy. But the present insurance policy was submitted for encashment long before its maturity and only on payment of three installments premium out of twenty years for relying twenty years. So, reply units as shown 20725.820 is not corrected for which after proper review, op searched out it was Capital Unit Gain and units earn up to 2009 because up to 2009 complainant submitted only three premiums.
So, after that up to 2014 i.e. till filing of the surrender of the policy as on 15.05.2014, the complainant was sitting idle and did not deposit any further premium for which that policy was lapsed. In the above situation as per provision of the insurance policy condition, the said policy was treated as a lapsed policy and it was lapsed after 2009 and within that period, the units which were earned and kept in the account of the complainant was assessed and as because it was lapsed that there was some penalty clause and as per penalty clause some penalty units were deducted that is Rs. 247.975.
So, apparently after considering the terms and conditions of the Capital Unit Gain Policy of the Bajaj Allianz company, we have gathered that the payment of Rs. 4,04,320.01 paisa was made on the basis of the surrendered units 19823.2394 as it stood in the year 2009 and as because the said policy was for twenty years term and maturity was after lapse of twenty years from the date of purchase of a policy of twenty years. But as because complainant did not continue it, the policy lapsed and no doubt op sent surrender request acknowledgement letter in which they noted it request unit 20729525. But there is no question of regular unit in view of the fact at the relevant time the policy also lapsed and complainant is not entitled to get any equity index fund two as per provision of that contract because equity index fund -2 is applicable in case of a policy on maturity. But in this case complainant relied upon that letter and claimed 537617.65.
But after considering the material on record we have gathered that total surrender units as on 15.05.2009 was 19823.239 and fact remains that op reported that matter by an email to the son of the complainant Sukhen Sen on 30.07.2014 and after considering that letter and also proposal form for life insurance including this terms and conditions, we are convinced to hold that the payment as made by the op after revised calculation is not unjust or illegal. But we have gathered that initial letter was issued by the op that is Surrender Request Acknowledgement Letter on 15.05.2014 does not reveal the actual lebel of the policy and might be without proper expertised verification the Surrender Request Acknowledgement Letter was sent and fact remains that it is somehow or otherwise an error on the part of the administration. But for that reason, complainant cannot get any relief. When truth is that policy was Capital Unit Gain Policy. Terms of policy was 20 years, it was opened in the year 2007 and maturity year is 2017 and payment of policy premium was of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and out of 20 premiums, complainant has paid only three premiums from 2007 to 2009. So the policy already lapsed for which automatically as per calculation complainant is not entitled to repayable unit of 20725.820 as equity index fund-II because equity index fund-II benefit can be given all the policy holder who has paid the entire term and contribute the policy for such 20 years.
But in this case complainant surrendered it after lapse of the policy for the year 2011. So, apparently it is evident that the above of Rs. 4,04,320/- was assessed on the total unit 19823.2394 and out of that penalty units of 25754.9754 is deducted. Then net total units was 17248.26 on the basis of which complainant was actually paid of Rs. 4,04,320.01 paisa which is no doubt actual calculation and that has already been paid to the complainant for which we find only on the basis of the erroneous assessment letter, complainant appeared before this Forum.
Most interesting thing is that in the complaint, complainant has not stated the terms of the policy, duration of the policy, maturity date of the policy and number of payment of premium and what was the status of the policy on the date of the surrender and by suppressing all those facts, this complainant appeared before this Forum and tried to grab of Rs. 1,33,000/- and odd that means the present complainant is nothing but a dishonest consumer and with some ulterior purpose, purposefully appeared before this Forum presenting that fact regarding purchase of the said policy, its terms and conditions, tenure of the policy, maturity date of the policy, actual payment of premium and status of the policy.
So, considering that fact, we are convinced to hold that dishonest complainant cannot be given any relief when the entire complaint is vexatious, false and fabricated and fact remains that op reported their error for sending the correct statement that matter has not been noted in the complaint also.
In the result, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Considering the circumstances of the present fact in the complaint and also the entire vital reply of the op regarding such discrepancies, we are convinced to hold that such a complaint should be imposed penal cost because the complainant has no doubt harassed the op and also appeared before this Forum with black hands. So, complainant shall have to deposit penal cost of Rs. 5,000/- before this Forum and it is imposed to check-up the consumer’s greediness from the mind of the consumer in future for a clean consumer society.
