Haryana

Ambala

CC/34/2011

VARUN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. - Opp.Party(s)

U.S.Chauhan

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.    :  34 of 2011

Date of Institution       :  25.01.2011

            Date of Decision         :  18.03.2016

Varun Sharma son of Sh. Madan Lal R/o House No.48, Housing Board Colony, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                                                                                                       Versus

1.         Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 127 Staff Road, Ambala Cantt through its Branch Manager.

2.         Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, Maharashtra-411006.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                               

Present:          Sh. Vijay Chauhan, Adv. counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a policy bearing No.55652051 from OP No.1 on 29.06.2007 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- on a premium of Rs.25,000/- yearly which was to be paid  minimum for three years.  At the time of purchase of policy, OP assured the complainant that after locking period of three years, the complainant shall get an assured amount of Rs.1,25,000/- without deductions of any amount. After completion of lock in period of the policy, complainant applied for refund of the policy amount by submitting all the original documents to the Ops whereupon Op No.1 informed vide statement of account dated 10.11.2010 that regular premium fund value amounting  to Rs.89,869.65NP is payable to the complainant  against the policy in question but the Ops transferred only Rs.72436/- in the Bank Account of  the complainant whereas the Ops were bound to pay an amount of Rs.89869.65 paise. As such, the Ops paid less amount of Rs. 17433/- to the complainant. So, the complainant vide letter dated 07.12.2010 objected the less refund amount of Rs.17433/- but of no avail.  As such, having no alternative, present complaint has been preferred by the complainant seeking relief as mentioned  in the prayer para of the complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, no deficiency in service on their part.  On merits, it has been urged that the policy of insurance is issued as per the IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) pre-approved terms & conditions and in case of insured being not satisfied with the terms & conditions of the policy,  he was having an option to return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents.  Admittedly, the complainant has received the policy documents which also included the proposal form but the complainant  never brought any anomaly to the notice of the insurance company.  It has been further urged by the Ops that after expiry of three years lock in period, entitlement of the complainant was clearly stated in the policy terms & conditions and accordingly, the surrender value was calculated as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy and disbursed to the complainant.  It has been further stated that no illegal amount has been deducted from the policy in question as the complainant is not entitled for any amount of Rs.1,25,000/- or Rs.89,869.65 as alleged in the complaint. As a matter of fact, the surrender value payable is calculated after deduction of the surrender charges from the Account Value as calculated on the basis of NAV of the units as on the date of surrender.  Further, NAV of the units are dependent on market conditions based on the performance of funds  which is beyond the control of the Ops. Therefore,  the Ops have rightly disbursed a sum of Rs.72436/- to the complainant and thus there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops,  In the end, prayer for dismissal of complainant has been made.

3.                     To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX  alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-3 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel  for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure RX of Sh. Ajay Tondon, authorized officer of Ops alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

4.                     We have heard the counsel for Ops and gone through the court file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he surrendered the policy in question after lock-in-period of three years according to which Ops have to refund amount of Rs.89869.65 NP as per their letter dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure C-1) but they disbursed a sum of Rs.72436/- as per letter dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure C-2) i.e. less amount of Rs.17433/- and thereafter he requested for payment of aforesaid balance amount of Rs.17433/- which has been arbitrarily deducted by the Ops but of no avail which is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

                        On the other hand, OP’s counsel have argued that on the date of surrender of policy i.e. 10.11.2010, the Regular Premium Fund Value of the policy in question was Rs.89869.65NP as mentioned in the statement of account  dated 10.11.2010 but as per terms & conditions of the policy, Regular Premium Fund Value was to be payable after deducting surrender charges as mentioned in clause 37 (f) of the Policy document (Annexure  R-1) which says  as under:-

                                    SURRENDER CHARGE:

Surrender Charge is applied on Capital Units only and recovered by the redemption of Capital Units. Surrender charge is given as [1-(1/1.05)N] multiplied by the value of  Capital Units as at the date of surrender, where “N” is the lower of the Policy Term and 20 years less the elapsed policy duration in years and any fraction thereof.

If at lest three full years Regular Premiums have not been paid, the Surrender Charge will be 100% of the value of the Capital Units,

                                                            So, after deducting the surrender charges, the value of the policy in question was rightly disbursed to the complainant through NEFT/RTGS in his account  on 22.11.2010 amounting to Rs.72436/- which is as per terms & conditions of policy and thus the complainant  is not entitled for any further amount and Ops are not deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and have not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint.

5.                     In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the confirmed view that Ops have disbursed the due amount of policy as per terms & conditions of policy and thus are not deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and have not committed any unfair trade practice. As such, we have no option except to  dismiss the present complaint.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:18.03.2016                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                        MEMBER