Date of Filing: 16.06.2015. Date of Disposal: 28.11.2022.
Complainant :Smt. Saraswati Panja, Vill. Chotogobindopur, P.O. Mandra, P.S. Indus, Dist. Bankura, Pin-722201.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1.Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Officer-in-Charge, having Office at G.E. Plaza, Airport Rd., Yerawada, Pune, Pin -411006, Maharasthra.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Eastern Processing Centre, Pam Plaza, 4th Floor, 169, Rashbehari avenue, Kolkata-19.
3. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Ashirwad Bhawan, 1st Floor, New Bus Stand Memari, P. S. Memari , Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713146.
4. Subhas Dutta, I.C. Code No. 1000491392 of Vill. Akui, P.O. Akui, P.S. Indus, Dist. Bankura, West Bengal-722201.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Insurance Ombudsman, 4, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-72.
6. Raj Kumar Ghosh, S/O Tapan Kr. Ghosh, Vill. Dasghora, P.O. Dasghara, P.S. Dhaniakhali, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712302.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Mr. Tamal Dey Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Mr. Deb Krishna Sinha -Ld. Advocate (For OP Nos. 1,2 & 3). .
: Mr. Syed Nurul Islam Ld. Advocate (for OP No.4)
FINAL ORDER
On 16. 06.2015 the complainant has filed this complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant proposed to make two policies of Life Insurance in the scheme of ‘ Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP(VO 3)’ for a period of 10 years of 10 equal annual installments of Rs.50,000/- . The complainant sent the Proposal Form and the Xerox copies of the documents on 31.10.2009 and gave to the OP No.4 a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- along with the said original documents for the purpose of making two policies on the life of herself of the said scheme. The OP No.4 gave two separate receipts to the complainant as proposal deposit of equal amount of Rs.50, 000/- vide receipt No. 2360251 and 2360252 and it is clear from the said receipt that the proposal was deposited to OP No.3 Branch Office situated at Memari Office within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum. The date of commencement of the policy was 28.12. 2009 vide policy No. 138328574 on the product name of the said scheme for a period of 10 years of 10 equal annual installments amount of Rs.50, 000/- including the filling up copy of the proposal form for life Insurance vide 021265492 dt. 31.10.2009 and another Insurance Policy paper vide Policy No. 0138547961 came to the hands of the complainant with the commencement on 28.12.2009 on the same amount for the same period. After accepting the policies, it was seen that there are some irregularities of the policies and then the office of the OP No0.3 denied the matter stating that it was only a matter of office.
Further case of the complainant is that she could not be able to arrange money for payment of annual installments in continuing the above said policies. As such the above two polices were lapsed and the OP Insurance Company terminated the aforesaid two policies due to non-payment of regular premium during the revival period from the due date of the last unpaid premium and in view of the terms and condition of the policy Vide No. 0138328574 the surrender value of the said policy is paid to the complainant by a Cheque being No. 066193 dt. 30.12.2014 of Rs. 54,578/- but in respect of the Policy vide No. 0138547961 the surrender value of the policy was paid by a cheque being No. 265361 dt. 03.01.2013 by Rs. 1002/-. Then, the complainant lodged a complaint on 29.01.2013 in respect of the said surrender value of the policy and the OP Insurance Company replied to the said complaint on 30.01.2013 stating that the amount of surrender value is correct.
The complainant further complained to the OP against such reply of the OP. The OP Insurance Company again rejected the said application on 08.05.2014 as per provisions laid down in RPG Rules 1998. The complainant on 28.04.2014 took resort on different officials of the OP Company including the OP No.5 against injustice of OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 but no fruitful result came. As such the complainant lodged a complaint before the Ld. Forum against such unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the OPs towards the complainant on the basis of the malice intention to grab the surrender value of the Policy No. 0138547961.
Upon this background the complainant prayed for passing a judgment against the OP No.1 directing to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and a further amount of Rs. 54,578/- including interest @10% thereon as an actual surrender value of the said policy and another direction may be given to the OP No.3 to pay a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, manufacturing a counterfeited document to grab the money of the complainant. The complainant again prayed for directing the OP No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.2, 00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service along with a direction to the OP No.5 to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000/- to the complainant for negligence and deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- due to sufferings of mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- .
OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 contested the case by filing a joint Written Version (W.V) . OP No.4 also contested the case by filing W/V. Other OPs did not contest the case.
OP No. 5 appeared in this case but did not file W/V. OP No.6 though appeared in this case yet did not file W/V and the case was preceded against him ex parte.
OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 denied all the material allegations of the complainant and submitted that the case is not maintainable in its present form and that the case is barred by limitations and that the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 submitted that the sum assured taken against proposal No. 0138328574 was Rs. 2,50,000/- and the premium payer of both the proposal was Mr. Kasinath Panja , husband of Mrs. Saraswati Panj at the time of taking policies the complainant was a housewife by occupation.
The documents sought for and the requirements needed in both the cases were (a) medical:- MER +AI+ ECG, (b) Husband’s nature of duty; (c) Alternate Standard of age proof and (d) the photograph submitted by the life assured . So, the BM MHR was asked to be submitted for starting the extra age of the life assured. Then the complainant applied for changing of product from “Century Plus -2” to “New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP” with benefits terms of 10 years and premium terms of 10 years. The Branch Office of this OP received the letter with fresh proposal form and benefit illustrations with new product. The complainant applied for New Product of Rs.50, 000/- against each proposal with Zero sum assured the complainant for the said reason deposited the balance sum of Rs.1, 000/- against proposal No. 0138547961 on 31.12.2009 and both the cases were accepted by this OPs with new product and accordingly proposals were issued of allowed by conversion of the proposal to policies and thus policies were converted as new policy. The OPs further submitted that due to non-payment of renewal premium against the policies for two consecutive years, the policy got foreclosed as per the terms and conditions of the polices, the OPs refunded the amount of Rs.1002 against the Policy No.0138547961 and Rs. 54,578/- against policy No. 01383285574. The complainant neither enquired and/or lodged complain about the alleged discrepancy nor availed the free look option of 15 days immediately either after the issuance of the polices or after receiving of the policy bonds. The complainant brought the complaint only after receiving the foreclosed amount from the OPs. Need it be mentioned here that OP parties on receiving complaint from the complainant clarified the grounds and reason and sent clarification reply to the complainant as to the reasons of difference of the foreclosure value of the two policies. The complainant herself signed in all the documents submitted before the office of the OPs. Due to change kin product version of the policy No. 013847891 the foreclosure amount has been fixed at Rs. 1002/- and it in no way becomes at par with the foreclosure amount of the other policy. The complainant out of her own free will, volition and options choose the products and subsequently changed those products as per the requirements of the complainant. The complainant herself chooses her agent. These OPs, therefore, did not commit any negligence or unfair trade practice or deficient in service.
Upon this background, they prayed for dismissal of the case.
The specific case of the OP No.4 is that he is only an agent of the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. and he disclosed his Agent Code in the W/V and proposed the complainant to make the policy of the said Insurance Company and did all works whatever is necessary as an agent. He supported the deposited amount as stated by the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3. He further submits that as per rules of the Company, the complainant agreed and signed on the proposal form. As such he did not see anything whether there is any irregularity. The complainant did not complaint before but the complainant did not able to deposit the premium of the policy. As such she demanded to get the surrender value of the said policy and the complainant complained about the surrender value sent by the company through a cheque of Rs.1002/- in respect of Policy No. 138547961 and being seen the policy bond and proposal form, he also became astonished that the signature on the proposal form is not his signature although my signature as identifier of the Xerox copies of the documents of the complainant is his signature and it was forged and counterfeited. The Branch Manager and the Sales Manager will say the actual thing about such fraud. He further submitted that the complainant threatened to kill him, if the surrender value is not returned and the Branch Manager was immediately informed and complained about such irregularities of the policy but he did not get any actual result. He further stated that he went to the different forums of the OP Company to get any result about such problem and then the complainant did not get any result. He did not know any more, as such the case is liable to be dismissed against OP No.4.
Decision with Reasons.
In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and Xerox copies of documents.
OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 prayed for treating their W/V as their evidence-on-affidavit which has been granted. The complainant then filed questionnaire to them. Thereafter, the OP No.3 only replied to the said questionnaire. Both sides filed Written Notes of Argument.
On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the complainant has stated the fact depicted in the complaint and denied the W/V. The Op Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in their evidence stated their fact depicted in the W/V and denied the complaint.
At the time of hearing the argument none of the parties has argued about the points of the case that it is barred by law of limitations and it is not maintainable in its present form or that the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Accordingly, those points are decided in favour of the complainant.
From the evidence on record, it is admitted that two polices were purchased after paying Rs. 50,000/- each and thereafter, the complainant has failed to pay the future premium due to economic stringency and subsequently, she demanded surrender value of those policies. It is also admitted fact from the evidence of both sides that she was paid surrender value of one Policy No. 0138328574 amounting to Rs. 54, 578/- and those policies were purchased on the same day and subsequently the policies were changed. The OP paid the Policy No. 0138547961 through a cheque bearing No. 265361 dt. 03.01.2013 by Rs. 1002/- . Only this surrender value of this Policy No. is disputed in this case. The complainant submitted that she is also entitled to get Rs. 54,578/- of the disputed surrender value of this case which has been paid Rs. 1002/- by the OPs on 03.01.2013. According to the terms and conditions of the policies the OPs rightly paid the amount of Rs.1002 against the Policy No. against the policy No. 0138547961 and Rs. 54,578/- against the Policy No. 0138328574 due to non-payment of renewal premium for two consecutive years but from the admitted facts and evidence, those two polices were purchased and changed on the same date and time and when the complainant could not pay the premium amount of those two policies, at the same time then how the OPs came to a conclusion that one of those polices will be surrender value of Rs.1002/- whereas the surrender value of the other policy is Rs. 54,578/-. The OPs Insurance Company accepted the policies and sent the Policy Bonds with the alleged proposal form in respect of the policy through postal registry as per the list of documents and the same proposal form being No. 021265492 was used in two separate polices on the different schemes as stated as per the list of documents to avoid payment and as such the OP No.4, being an agent of the OP Nos. 1 to 3, also admitted the signature of the policy bond is not genuine. It has been counterfeited by someone of the Company and accordingly the Company was to be more cautious and careful in handling the said policy No. 0138547961 and on this ground only he cannot refuse to make surrender value of the policy in dispute in this case when one surrender value of other policy has been paid by the OP at the value of Rs. 54,578/-. Moreover, the reply No. 4 given by the OPs in respect of questionnaire of the complainant that forms are identical but have got different serial numbers. Therefore, there is no scope to raise doubt in payment of full surrender value of the policy in question like the payment of surrender value of Rs. 54,578/- of other policy.
Under the above facts and circumstance, we are of opinion that the OPs committed deficiency in service and negligent on their part. But the OP No.4 is not liable in this case and OP Nos. 5 & 6 are also not liable as because no paper or materials is forthcoming against them. But OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 are liable in this case jointly and severally.
As a result, the case succeeds.
Considering the submissions of both sides and materials on record, the complainant is only entitled to get the surrender value of the Policy No. 0138547961 at a value of Rs. (54,578/- minus 1002) = Rs. 53,576/- . The complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.30, 000/- due to suffering from mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.30, 000/- , considering the old age of the case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 130/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against all the OPs but without any cost.
The OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 are directed to pay the surrender value of Policy No. 0138547961 of Rs. 53,576/- along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) for mental pain, suffering and harassment and Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) as litigation cost jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
