Haryana

Karnal

426/2011

Pushpa W/o Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Sukhan

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                  Complaint No.426 of 2011                                                                           

                                                                  Date of instt.: 19.07.2011

                                                                   Date of decision: 24.02.2016

 

Smt. Pushpa wife of late Sh.Anil Kuamr, resident of village and Post office  Raipur Jatan tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.                                                                                                  

                                                      ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.Bajaj  Allianz Life Insurance company Ltd. through its Manager, Sector 12, Karnal.

2.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance co. Ltd. through its Manager, Plot No.271, Industrial Area, pHase-2, Panchkula(Haryana) 134015.

 

3.Gian Singh(Agent)c/o Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.Sector 12, Karnal.

 

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.N.K.Sakun Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the Opposite Party. No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Sunder Lal Advocate for Opposite Party no.3.

ORDER:                  

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, on the averments that she took   policy No.0095839387 on 28.3.2008 by paying the amount of Rs.99,999/- She was told by the Opposite Party No.3 that policy was  of one time payment and she was to pay nothing after installment. Her signatures/thumb impressions were obtained by the agent on the proposal form and conditions of the policy were never told to her. The time period of the policy was told as ten years after receiving the premium of Rs.99999/-. The agent never intimated her regarding further payment of the installments, if any. She visited the office of Opposite Party no.1 at Karnal and  made written request for refund  of the amount deposited by her alongwith interest thereon @ 18% all but all in vain. Ultimately, she got issued registered legal notice dated  11.4.2011, but the same also did not  yield any result. In this  way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties, which caused her mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 filed  joint  written statement  disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised  that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own acts and conduct; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant is not consumer and that the complaint is pre mature as the complainant  did not exhaust remedy available under the law.

                    On merits, it has been admitted that the policy in question was issued to the complainant, which was effective from 28.3.2008. It has been submitted that the complainant  herself proposed for regular premium linked endowment (Century plus plan)after understanding the features, terms and conditions of the plan, vide proposal dated 30.3.2008 and opted out of her own  free will to yearly regular premium @ Rs.99999/- for the period of ten years and  the policy No. 0095839387 was   dispatched to her, vide speed post dated 10.4.2008, which was duly received by her. She never disputed the receipt of the policy bond and terms and conditions of the contract expressly mentioned on the policy documents. She was fully aware about the terms and conditions of the policy. She was given fifteen days “free look” cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract. if , she was dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, but she never approached the  Opposite Parties to cancel the policy within fifteen days. She knowingly and intentionally did  not pay the  due premium on 28.3.2009 and onward, therefore, the policy was lying lapsed w.e.f. 28.3.2009. She concocted a false story just to illegally withdraw the first premium deposited by her. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                The Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the  complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own acts and conduct; that this Forum has no jurisdiction  to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and  that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexacious to the knowledge of the complainant.

 

          On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant herself opted the term of the premium of ten years and the Opposite Party no.3 never told her that it was one time payment policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were duly explained to the complainant by Opposite Party no.3 in the presence of witnesses. Moreover, the terms and conditions were duly printed on the proposal form as well as in the policy, so the information regarding further payment of installment by the Opposite Party no.3 to the complainant did not arise at all.  There was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party no.3.The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

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

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Shri Vivek Arora Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Gian Singh Ex.OP3/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/C 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.                As  per the case of the complainant  she was told by the Opposite Party No.3 that the policy was one  time payment of premium and she was  to pay premium of Rs.99999/- and thereafter no installment was to be paid. She was never intimated regarding further payment of installments.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party no.3 in the written statement asserted that terms and conditions of the policy were  duly explained to the complainant in the presence of the witnesses and the same were also printed on the proposal form as well as in the policy, therefore, information regarding further installments was not required.

 

8.                The complainant has not disputed the fact that Opposite Parties had issued insurance policy No.0095839387 and premium of Rs.99999/- was deposited by her.  Before issuance of the policy, the complainant had submitted the proposal form, the copy of which is Ex.OP/2.  In Sections 4 to 6 of the proposal form details of the term of the policy and premium were filled up. The term of the policy was filled up as ten year, the premium frequency was mentioned as annual. The premium was of Rs.99999/-. The said proposal form was duly signed by the complainant. The complainant is an educated lady and she put her signatures in English. Once, she admitted her signatures, the burden shifted upon her to prove that proposal form was not read over to her or she signed the same under any undue influence or coercion or fraud played upon her, but  neither there is any such definite pleadings nor there is no such cogent evidence. Moreover, the complainant could cancel the policy and seek refund of the premium deposited by her within free look period i.e. fifteen days from the date of receipt of the policy. However, she did not cancel the policy within free look period. After expiry of the free look period, she could not cancel the policy and seek refund of the amount of first premium deposited by her, because such refund was not permissible as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant as  well as Opposite Party were bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Under the afore discussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in  observing  that insurance company acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

9.                    As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. 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:24.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.N.K.Sakun Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the Opposite Party. No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Sunder Lal Advocate for Opposite Party no.3.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 24.02.2016.

 

Announced
dated:17.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.N.K.Sakun Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the Opposite Party. No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Sunder Lal Advocate for Opposite Party no.3.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:24.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.