Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

216/2014

Mrs.Vadivambal Varadharajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, - Opp.Party(s)

K.A.Ramachandran

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  13.11.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  13.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II`

 

THURSDAY  THE 13^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.216/2014

 

 

Mrs.Vadivambal Varadharajan,

Wife. Of  Dr.S.Varadharajan,

Door.No.30, Plot.No.874,

Dr.Ramasamy Road,

K.K.Nagar west,

Chennai – 600 078.

                                                                                           .... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	1.Bajaj Allainz Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its. The Chief Executive Officer, 3rd floor, G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006, Maharastra State.   2.Bajaj Allainz Life Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its. The Deputy Manager, 4th Floor, No.497-498 Poonamallee High Road, Opp Medical Council Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 20.11.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : K.A.Ramachandran

Counsel for Opposite parties                    :M/s.S.Namasivayam

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager of Bajaj Allainz Insurance Company Limited Chennai of the 2^nd opposite party, approached the Complainant to join in the opposite party companies pension guarantee scheme. He assured the Complainant that 1.She would get more benefit in the scheme than in fixed deposits with banks, 2. The invested amount can be withdrawn from the scheme at any time if she feels that she is in need. Believing the words, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,80,844/- as onetime payment on 28.03.2011 at Chennai with the 2^nd opposite party. A policy was issued by the opposite parties in favour of the Complainant on 28.03.2011 under the policy No.0213173943. However the opposite parties had issued the policy in favour of the Complainant after she approached the opposite party a number of times for details and policies. She   had nominated her daughter Mrs.Leela Varadharajan @ Mrs.Leela Sridhar wife of Dr.Sridhar Vijaya Sekaran as nominee to the policy. However in the policy the name  one Mr.Nimish Ajmera of Mumbai who has been mentioned as nominee do not have any connection what so ever with the Complainant. The Complainant contacted and approached the opposite party number of times and then only the nominee was changed from Nimsh Ajmera to Leela Sridhar on 31.01.2013. Still the correct fact of Leela Varadharajan @ Leela Sridhar wife of Dr.Sridhar Vijaya Sekaran as requested by the Complainant was not fully broughout in the opposite parties policy or confirmation of changes thereafter. The time lapse between the approach for correction and actual correction was to the tune of around 6 months. She now crossed the age of 72 and she is also a diabetic patient. Now the Complainant needs more money for meeting out her medical treatment. Nowadays huge money is needed for frequent medical treatment and for purchasing costly medicine. Therefore the Complainant decided to approach the opposite parties for the refund of the policy amount. On 1.7.2014 the Complainant had sent a letter to the opposite parties requesting to refund the policy amount of Rs.10,80,844/-. On 4.7.2014 the opposite parties received the letter dated 1.7.2014 but the opposite parties did not sent reply to the Complainant so far. Under the Life insurance Corporation act 31 of 1956 an insured has a right to surrender his insurance policy and to get the refund of the paid premium. The same provision of law is also applicable to the opposite parties. On 25.08.2014 the Complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to refund the policy amount of Rs.10,80,844/- to the Complainant immediately. The opposite parties received the legal notice on 1.9.2014. But the opposite parties did not sent any reply and failed to refund the policy amount to the Complainant so far. Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to refund the policy amount and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

 

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The averments made in the petition are all not true and valid and the not admitted by the opposite party excepting those that are specifically admitted in the written version. The Complainant agreeing the terms and conditions of the policy and purchased a policy for a sum of Rs.10,80,844/- single premium payment in the Bajaj Allianz Pension Guarantee  Scheme . The policy term is a period of 36 years and the death benefit to the nominee Leela Varadharajan is the premium amount deposited by the Complainant. The benefit to the Complainant Annuity Frequency on monthly basis a sum of Rs.6,415/-. The contract of insurance is an agreement between the proposer and the insurance company. The policy provides withdrawal   option of 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of the policy to approach the Insurer for cancellation of the policy, if she is not satisfied. However, the Complainant failed to do so. Further, the Complainant has at no point of time raised any grievance before the opposite party. Therefore the Complainant is barred from raising any grievance about non awareness of the policy terms. The policy issued to the Complainant only after the Complainant agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Now the Complainant suppressed the materials facts and misrepresenting the facts. The Complainant has been regularly receiving the Annuity amount of Rs.6,415/- since 28.04.2011. Therefore, these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint. 

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

4.POINT NO:1

          The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10.80,844/- as onetime payment on 28.03.2011 with the  2^nd opposite party in the Bajaj Allianz Pension Guarantee  Scheme. The 1^st opposite party is the Head Office of the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.A1 is the policy issued by the opposite parties to the Complainant for the amount deposited by her in the above said scheme. The Complainant nominated her daughter Mr. Leela Varadharajan @ Mr.Sridhar as her nominee in her policy. At the time of deposit the Complainant is 63 years old. The policy document Ex.A1 was issued to the Complainant only on 13.07.2012 after the Complainant reminded the opposite parties. The Complainant for the deposited amount is getting a sum of Rs.6,415 as monthly pension (Frequency as Annuity Installment).

          5. The Complainant contended that she had deposited the amount one Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager of the 2^nd opposite party approached her to join the pension guarantee scheme and at that time the said Ravi told her that she would get more benefit in the scheme than the fixed deposit in the bank and she can withdraw the amount from the scheme at any time if she feel that she is in need and that is why she has deposited the amount and the opposite parties have not issued the policy immediately and the policy is issued only after 1 year 3 months belatedly and further the nominee name also incorrectly mentioned in the policy as Nimsh Ajmera and after that the  Complainant informed the wrong name of nominee entered in the policy and thereafter only  they corrected  and the Complainant is very old and her husband more older than her  and she is in need of the deposited amount for her medical treatment and more than that she is diabetic patient and she refunded  such amount and the Complainant wrote Ex.A2 letter to the 1^st opposite party and she had acknowledged the same under Ex.A3 and however there is no reply from him and hence the Complainant issued Ex.A3 legal notice and that was also acknowledged by him an under Ex.A5 and  however no reply given by the opposite party for the demand made by the Complainant and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          6. The opposite parties contended that the terms and conditions of the policy binds the policy holder and only after agreeing the terms the Complainant deposited the amount and if she wants to cancel the policy she ought to have done the same within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy and however the Complainant failed to raise any plea within free look  period and hence she is not entitled for refund of the deposited amount and therefore the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          7. Admittedly the opposite parties have delivered the policy to the Complainant after one year 3 months of the deposit of her money with the 2^nd opposite party on 28.03.2011. Even such policy was delivered to her only after repeated demand made by the Complainant. If the opposite parties immediately provided the policy with terms the conditions the Complainant would have gone through same and taken steps if any within the free look period. In this case only at the demand made by the Complainant after 1 year 3 months the policy was delivered with a delay, the Complainant at the point of time due to her mental conditions that she is 63 years old, she ought not to have gone through the policy conditions at all. Even in the policy issued belatedly, nominee name was differently written instead of the nominee name furnished by the Complainant. The mentioning of the different name obviously found in the 1^st page of the policy with the other particulars of furnished by her. In such circumstances one cannot accept that due to wrong written nominee name, the Complainant would have gone through the entire terms and conditions. The contention of the opposite parties that within the free look period the Complainant has not asked for cancellation of the policy and hence she is not entitled for surrender cannot be accepted and the same  is rejected. At the time of deposit was made the Complainant is 63 years and her husband is elder than her. The policy terms are for a period of 36 years. No prudent man will deposit such a huge amount of more than Rs.10,00,000/- would be deposited  at the age of 63 for the policy terms of 36 years. Further the Complainant specifically pleaded that one Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager of the 2^nd opposite party approached her for deposit in the scheme and said that on deposit she can withdrawn the amount from the scheme at any time if she wants. This particular fact was not specifically denied by the opposite parties. Therefore in such circumstances Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager approached the Complainant and also told her that and she can withdraw the deposit amount at any time.

          8. Further, the Complainant wrote letter dated 01.07.2014 specifically mentioning that Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager approached him and on his approach  she deposited the amount, since there is a possibility taking back the deposited amount and therefore she requested in that letter to refund the deposited amount for her medical treatment. Ex.A4 legal notice dated 25.08.2014 reiterating the above demand. Both the letter and legal notice acknowledged by the 1^st opposite party and he did not reply for the same. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case i.e: age of the Complainant, the period of the deposit was put in for 36 years and delay in delivering of the policy and particularly on  Mr.Ravi Deputy Manager’s assurance that she can get refund of the deposit amount any time, all leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Opposite Parties  failed to refund the deposit amount proves that they have committed deficiency in service to the Complainant.

 

09.POINT NO:2

          Since the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in refunding the amount, it would be appropriate to order that the Complainant is entitled to get refund sum of Rs.10,80,844/- from the opposite parties to utilise for her medical treatment. Considering the age of the Complainant and the opposite parties negligently failed to refund the amount caused mental agony is acceptable and for the same a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be ordered as compensation to the Complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are ordered to refund the deposit amount of Rs.10,80,844/-(Rupees ten lakhs eighty thousand  eight hundred and forty four only) to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of  Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards  litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. 

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 13^th day of October 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.03.2011                   Policy issued in favour of the Complainant

Ex.A2 dated 01.07.2014                   Letter from the Complainant to the 1^st opposite

                                                   party  

 

Ex.A3 dated 04.07.2014                   Acknowledgement signed by the 1^st opposite

                                                   party

Ex.A4 dated 25.08.2014                   Legal Notice sent to the 1^st opposite party  

Ex.A5 dated 01.09.2014         Acknowledgement signed by the 1^st opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Authorized Signatory

                                     

         

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT