DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.513 of 20-08-2014
Decided on 02-09-2015
Lakhveer Singh Gill aged about 30 years S/o Resham Singh R/o Village Lambwali, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Above ICICI bank, Opposite Clock Tower, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge.
2.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Ground Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.A.S Sekhon, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.M.L Bansal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-
1. The complainant Lakhveer Singh Gill (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the agent/official of opposite parties approached the complainant and allured him to get life insurance policy. It was conveyed by the agent that if he does not want to continue with the policy at anytime, the amount deposited by him shall be refunded with interest to him.
3. It is alleged that the complainant, being allured by official of opposite parties, agreed to purchase the abovesaid policy and paid first premium of Rs.24,541/- to opposite parties on 4.4.2011 for sum assured of Rs.2,28,000/-. After receiving the premium, the complainant was issued policy bearing No.0214314944 with commencement date of risk 31.3.2011, but no terms and conditions were issued by opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant has regularly been depositing the due installments as and when a letter was received from opposite parties for deposit of installment regarding abovesaid policy. The complainant deposited three premiums up to March, 2013 with opposite party No.1. The complainant deposited total amount of Rs.73,623/-, but thereafter he has not received any intimation/letter for the deposit of any premium from opposite parties. As such, the complainant could not deposit the premiums thereafter.
4. It is further alleged that the complainant was in dire need of money, so he approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to pay the policy amount deposited by him, alongwith upto date interest and other benefits. The officials of opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and some blank printed forms and also took one cancelled cheque from him and assured him that his lawful claim amount shall be credited in his bank account directly, but opposite parties credited only an amount of Rs.47,102/- in his bank account. The complainant many times approached opposite parties and requested them to pay him remaining amount of Rs.26,521/- (Rs.73,623/- - Rs.47,102/-) alongwith upto date interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of abovesaid premiums alongwith other benefits, but opposite parties conveyed him that his full and final claim amount has been paid to him and nothing is due against them and finally, flatly refused to pay him any amount.
On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint.
5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version.
6. In written version, before taking preliminary objections and reply on merits, opposite parties denied all the averments mentioned in the complaint as though the contents thereof have been specifically set forth and traversed herein, save and except to the extent the content(s), therefore are specifically admitted.
7. Opposite parties raised the preliminary objections that no cause-of-action has arisen in favour of the complainant against them as they have already made the payment of permissible surrender value amounting to Rs.47,103/- and amount has admittedly been credited to his OBC Bank account No.09542191013793 vide UTR No.SIN00101Q6935642 dated 1.8.2014. The complainant himself out of his free will, executed a discharge form in full and final settlement of his claim under policy No.0214314944, without any coercion or force. As such, the complainant has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of his claim under the policy and has filed this complaint just to derive illegal financial gains. The complainant is estopped to file this complaint. The complaint is time barred. The complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct. The complainant has opted to pay yearly regular premiums @ Rs.24,541/- (Excluding Service Tax) in the proposal form dated 31.3.2011 duly signed by him in English language and paid renewal premiums due on 28.3.2012 and 28.3.2013 in addition to the initial premium paid in the year 2011, without ever disputing or challenging the express terms and conditions of the non linked regular premium 'Invest Gain Economy' policy. Mere payment of regular premiums for subsequent years, without raising any dispute regarding the terms of the contract clearly indicates that the complainant was fully satisfied with the policy issued to him. This complaint has been filed at this belated stage by concocting a false story just to derive illegal financial gains contrary to the contract of insurance. The complaint is not legally maintainable as the complainant has levelled false allegations of allurement and misrepresentation against the agent without naming or impleading any such person in the array of parties. Even otherwise, the agents are independent contractors duly licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to act as agent for solicitation of insurance business for an insurance company. Opposite parties are not vicariously liable for any unauthorized private acts and omissions on the part of the agent as there is no Principle-Agency relationship between the agent and opposite parties. Opposite parties have never authorized any person to make any commitment beyond the terms and conditions duly approved by IRDA. As such, opposite parties are not responsible or liable for any unauthorized commitment or promise made by an insurance agent other than that expressly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy document received by the complainant. No alleged promise to make the payment of any fixed amount or any interest to the complainant if he did not want to continue the policy, was ever made by opposite parties and no such promise is part of benefits clearly unequivocally detailed in the policy document, received by the complainant, which is still in his possession. The policy was issued strictly in accordance with the proposal made by the complainant.
8. It is also alleged that the complaint is estopped to file this complaint due to his own act and conduct as he being a prudent person himself proposed for the 'Regular Premium Non Linked Invest Gain Economy Policy' after duly understanding the features, benefits, charges and terms and conditions and filled a proposal form duly signed by him. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by opposite parties as proposed and a policy bearing No.0214314944 was issued to him alongwith original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the insurance contract, which was duly received by him as confirmed from the copy of the first premium receipt submitted by him, which is a part of the original policy document sent to him. The complainant was given 15 days free look cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract as per the Policy Holders' Protections Regulations, 2002 and if he was dissatisfied with the said terms and conditions of the policy, he would have given written notice to opposite parties to cancel the policy within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond. The complainant being fully satisfied with the proposed plan and terms and conditions of the policy bond never approached opposite parties to cancel the policy within 15 days of free look cancellation period or anytime thereafter and did not return the policy bond seeking refund of premium permissible as per terms. The complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable as opposite parties have acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
9. On merits also, opposite parties have controverted all the material averments and reiterated their version as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above.
In the end, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
10. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.
11. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of first premium receipt, (Ex.C1) and copies of payment receipts, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) and his own affidavit dated 20.8.2014, (Ex.C4).
12. Opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/11, which included affidavit of Neeraj Kumar Bansal dated 28.10.2014, (Ex.OP1/1); copies of proposal form, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/9); copies of policy schedule (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4) and submitted written arguments.
13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.
14. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his version as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant was issued policy with commencement date 31.3.2011. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid three premiums amounting to Rs.73,623/-. The averment of the complainant is that he has not received policy. Opposite parties were to prove this fact. No dispatch register has been brought on record to prove that the complainant has been supplied with copy of policy. Therefore, it is to be presumed that no policy was supplied to the complainant. As such, the complainant is not bound by terms and conditions contained in any policy. When the complainant has deposited the premiums of Rs.73,623/-, he was entitled to receive the entire amount alongwith invested bonus or interest, but the complainant has been paid only Rs.47,102/-. As such, the complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.26,521/- alongwith upto date interest in addition to other benefits accrued to the complainant. As opposite parties were deficient in providing the service and adopted unfair trade practice,therefore, the complainant is also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as well as litigation expenses.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story. The complainant has voluntarily opted for the policy in question. The complainant was duly supplied copy of policy. In case, the complainant was not supplied policy, he was not remained silent. The complainant produced the first premium receipt, (Ex.C1). A close examination of this document proves that it is part of policy as the total pages of document were 16 and premium receipt was page 5 of the complete document. This fact is proved from the receipt itself. The complainant has alleged that he was not intimated regarding due date, but receipt, (Ex.C3) relied upon by the complainant belies this version of the complainant. In Ex.C3 the premium due date is mentioned as 28.3.2014. Admittedly, the complainant has not paid premiums after 30.3.2013. The complainant has also pleaded that he approached opposite parties and requested them to refund amount deposited by him with interest. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.47,102/- and this amount has been paid to him. The complainant has signed letter relating to surrender value and was made aware that a sum of Rs.47,078.16/- is surrender value. The complainant has also requested for release of final payment as per the calculation and final payment was released to him, which was credited in his account. The complainant has denied regarding receiving the policy, but Ex.OP1/3 proves that the original policy was received by an authorized agent of the complainant and request for surrender value was also countersigned by his authorized signatory. Thus, these documents also prove that the original policy was also received by the complainant. When the complainant has accepted the surrender value without any protest, now he is debarred from claiming any other further amount.
16. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
17. It is well settled law that when the averment of the complainant is not admitted by opposite parties, the complainant has to prove his case by leading evidence. The complainant has admitted that he has purchased life insurance policy and paid first premium of Rs.24,541/- and also admitted that he was issued policy bearing No.0214314944 with date of commencement risk as 31.3.2011. Of-course, the complainant has stated that the terms and conditions of the policy was never issued by opposite parties. The complainant has produced on record first premium receipt, (Ex.C1), which shows that it is receipt of document from 16 pages and it was at page 5. It was also mentioned in this document that policy is being sent herewith. Therefore, this document itself shows that the complainant was supplied with the policy containing terms and conditions. In case, the complainant has not received the terms and conditions, he was certainly to raise objection immediately. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has raised any objection regarding non-receipt of policy containg terms and conditions. (Ex.OP1/3), is also schedule, which is signed by an authorized signatory of the complainant by acknowledging the receipt of original policy. Therefore, opposite parties have rather proved that the complainant has received the policy also.
18. The complainant has further alleged that he approached opposite parties and requested them to pay the policy amount deposited by him. Opposite parties have brought on record this letter of the complainant as (Ex.OP1/7) issued to him in reference to his request for surrender value payable. As per this letter, the calculations were detailed and complainant's full signatures in the presence of his authorized signatory were obtained. The complainant was made aware that the net surrender value is worked out Rs.47,078.16/-. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has accepted this calculation under protest. Admittedly, this amount has been paid to the complainant. Therefore, now the complainant is debarred from raising any objection.
19. Keeping in view all the facts, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. As such, the complaint is without merits and stand dismissed without any order as to cost.
20. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.
21. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
02-09-2015
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
