Haryana

Karnal

241/2013

Smt. Bhanwati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Sharma

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.241 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 17.05.2013

                                                               Date of decision:20.05.2016

 

Smt. Bhanwati resident of House no.278, Ward no.2 Mahavir Colony Ladwa, District Kurukshetra c/o Surjeet Singh son of Shri Shamsher Singh resident of village Gagsina, tehsil Gharaaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Bajaj Allianz, Life Insurance Company Ltd, SCO no.226, Sector 12 Urban Estate, Karnal-132001.

2. Bajaj Allianz, Life Insurance Company Ltd. Plot no.271, Industrial Area Phase-2, Panchkula (Haryana)

3. Bajaj Allianz, Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Head Office GE Plaza, Airport Road Yerawada, Pune 411006.

4. Darshan Lal, agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. resident of Geeta Colony, Bawa Clinic Wali Gali, Raduar, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. R.K. Sharma  Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.N.K. Zak Advocate for the Opposite parties no.1 to 3.

                    Opposite party no.4 exparte.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that in the month of February, 2008 opposite party no.4, being agent of opposite party no.3, contacted her at her village Gagsina and persuaded her to obtain policy of Bajaj Allianz by mis-representing the fact that if she would deposit sum of Rs.49,950/- one time, insurance company would return a sum of Rs.99,990/- to the policy holder after completion of 5 years. On such assurance of opposite party no.4, she obtained policy no.0087069736 on 22.02.2008. The policy period of five years completed on 22.02.2013. Thereafter, she contacted opposite party no.4, and requested to get paid the amount of Rs.99.990/-. The opposite party no.4 assured her that the insurance company would pay the said amount through cheque after the period of five years. However, on 27.2.2013, she received letter from opposite party no.3 alongwith cheque amounting to Rs.41,981/-. Thereafter, she contacted the opposite party no.4 and narrated him about receiving the cheque alongwith letter regarding termination of the policy due to non-payment of regular premium during revival period of two/three years from the date of last alleged unpaid premium. On that, the opposite party no.4 told her that there was mistake on the part of the company and he would get himself rectified as the policy launched by opposite parties no.1 to 3 was one time paid and after depositing Rs.49,950/-nothing was to be deposited by the policy holder. However, opposite party no.4 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, she met the officials of opposite party no.1 and they told that she was to deposit the premium once in a year for a period of 10 years but due to non-payment of further installments the policy was terminated. The conduct of the opposite parties amounted clear deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment, apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties No.1to 3 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with ulterior motive to get the undue benefit from the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant submitted proposal form on 15.02.2008, duly signed by her, wherein she opted to pay yearly installment of Rs.99,900/- for premium payment term of 10 years and made declaration that all the answers to the questions of the proposal were given by her after fully understanding the same. The proposal of the complainant was accepted and policy for sum assured of Rs.4,99,500/- commencing from 22.02.2008 was issued to her. The complainant was never told that she would be paid Rs.99,900/- after 5 years upon payment of single premium. The complainant neither disputed the policy during the free look period of 15 days of receipt of the policy nor did she ever challenge the terms of the policy approved by IRDA for more than five years. A false story has been concocted at this belated stage just to derive illegal financial gains contrary to the express terms of the contract. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are not responsible for unauthorized acts and omissions on the part of the agent. It has further been averred that there is no principal agent relationship between the opposite party no.4 and the opposite parties no.1 to 3, because agents are independent contractors, who are licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to act as an insurance agent for solicitation of insurance business. It has further been pleaded that the complainant did not get policy revived even within the permissible revival period of four years, which ultimately expired on 21.02.2013. Thus, the contract of insurance was terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and permissible surrender value amounting to Rs.41,981/- was paid to her, which was accepted without any protest. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.4 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been averred that the opposite party no.4 being agent of opposite parties no.1 to 3 met to the complainant and had shown her the broucher  of the insurance policy. Complainant is an educated person and she out of his own free will obtained the policy and made payment of the premium through cheque and submitted the proposal form. After receiving the policy, the complainant admitted the terms and conditions of the policy as correct and did not raise any objection. The other allegations made in the complaint against him regarding mis-representation and the assurances have been specifically denied.

                   Lateron, none put into appearance for opposite party no.4, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him, vide order dated 6.11.2015.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C6 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 affidavit of Ashok Kumar Branch Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to O5 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.49,950/- as premium and policy was issued by opposite parties no.1 to 3. However, the complainant has alleged that opposite party no.4 mis-represented to her that only one time premium was to be paid and after completion of the five years she would get Rs.99,990/-. Opposite parties in their written statements have completely denied the factum of the alleged misrepresentation.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the policy was obtained by the complainant on the representation of opposite party no.4, who told that one time premium was to be paid and the policy was to mature after five years and double the amount of the premium would be returned. The opposite party no.4 is the agent of opposite parties no.1 to 3, therefore, being the principal opposite parties no.1 to 3 are liable for his acts.  It has further been contended that the complainant was entitled to get refunded the amount of premium after termination of the policy, but the opposite parties illegally deducted amount from the premium deposited by her and issued a cheque of Rs.41,981/- only.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 laid emphasis of the contention that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the term of the policy was ten years. Even in the proposal form, the copy of which is Ex.O2, it was specifically mentioned that the premium term was ten years. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that only one time premium was to be paid, as the policy was to mature after ten years. It has further been argued that the complainant did not deposit the premium, therefore, the policy lapsed. On termination of the policy fund value of the premium deposited by her was paid to her in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

10.              The complainant has alleged that opposite party no.4 misrepresented facts to her that the policy was one time premium payment policy and it would mature after five years, but she has not been able to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate such plea of fraud and misrepresentation. The complainant had submitted the proposal form, the copies of which are Ex.O2 and O6, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the premium term was ten years and benefit term was also ten years. It is important to point out that the complainant has not disputed the factum of  receiving the copy of the insurance policy. After getting the policy she could go through the terms and conditions of the policy and  if she was not satisfied, she could get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but she did not do so. The complainant is an educated lady, therefore, it is to be presumed that she signed all the documents relating to the policy after going through the contents thereof and admitting the same as correct.  The copy of the proposal form shows that Ram Singh, the husband of the complainant was the witness of the policy. It was specifically written by the complainant that she  signed after understanding the scheme. Therefore, the complainant is estopped from raising dispute regarding the term of the policy. Under such circumstances, the plea raised by the complainant that opposite party no.4 had misrepresented the premium term of the policy cannot be accepted.

11.              Admittedly, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have paid the complainant an amount of Rs.41,981/- as fund value at the time of termination of the policy. Learned counsel for the complainant could not bring to the notice of this forum any rule, instruction, law or authority of any superior forum or court according to which she was entitled to get refund of the entire amount of premium deposited by her. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the complainant in this regard is not tenable.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member