BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pardeep Singh Kundi S/o Sh.Ajit Singh Kundi, R/o H.No.2319, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh, through his father and GPA Sh.Ajit Singh Kundi

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager/General Manager, SCO No.45, Pocket I, Manimajra, NAC, Chandigarh 160101

2]  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its CEO/COO, GE Plaza Air Port Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006

3]  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its MD/CMD, GE Plaza Air Port Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL      

PRESIDING MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA 

MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.R.M.Dutta, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for OPs

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

         The complainant purchased two insurance policies bearing NO.0083328097 & 01261733338 respectively on making payment of Rs.46,000/- & Rs.50,000/- respectively as single premium (Ann.C-1 & C-2). It is averred that the out of the said premium amount, the OPs kept on deducting different type of charges illegally at regular intervals from the units allotted against the said policies, thereby reducing the value of the units everyday. Ultimately, the complainant visited the OPs a number of time requesting them to refund his invested amount, but they refused to do so.  Hence, this complaint alleging the said act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

2]       The OPs filed joint reply admitting therein the issuance of policies in question to the complainant. It is also stated that the policies in question were issued to complainants, as proposed by him, vide their proposal forms Ann.R-1 & R-2 respectively.  It is submitted that the complainant is not paying regular premium against policy No.0083328097 and the same is in lapsed condition, but it is still continuing to participate in the investment performance of the underlying funds and complaint can get it revived with revival period of 4 years, which is to expire on 18.1.2012. However, the revival period of second policy No.0126173338 had expired on 28.4.2012 and the contract stand terminated in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy and an amount of Rs.816/- stands paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 7.5.2012.  It is asserted that if the complainants were not satisfied with the terms & conditions of the policies, for any reason as alleged, he could have availed free look period option for cancellation of the policies, but did not do so.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying the averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]      Admittedly the complainant purchased two insurance policies, namely, Bajaj Allianz Century Plus & Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain (Ann.C-1 &   C-2) from OP Insurance Company.

6]       The contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant is that complainant had paid Rs.46,000/- & Rs.50,000/- respectively against the said policies Ann.C-1 & C-2 as single premium, but the OPs illegally deducted different type of charges, from the units allotted against the said policies, from time to time, without any information and thereby reduced the value of the policies. Moreover, when he requested the OPs to refund his invested amount, the same was rejected.

7]       The ld.Counsel for the OPs contended that the insurance policies in question were issued according to the application forms filled-in by the complainant after going through its contents and accepting the same as correct.  It was also contended that the applicable charges, as mentioned in the policy document, were to be deducted from the units allotted to the complainant, which was very well in the knowledge of the complainant. It is lastly argued that even in the policy documents issued to the complainant, there is a specific mention about the Free Look Period to cancel the policy, whereby the policyholder could get his policy cancelled in case he is not satisfied with the terms & conditions, but the complainant never opted for the same.

8]       The main grouse of the complainant is that the OPs had illegally deducted the charges on different account by canceling his units from time to time.

9]       We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant. A close scrutiny of Policy Documents Ann.R-1/A & Ann.R-2/A makes it clear that the OPs at Clause No.33 of both policy documents had mentioned the deduction of charges on different head from the allotted units.  Thus, the plea of the complainant that the OPs had illegally deducted his units on account of different heads, is not sustainable.

10]      Furthermore, Ann.R-1 & R-2 shows that the Premium Frequency, under Clause 5, has been opted as Annually by the complainant. The said application forms have been duly singed by the complainant. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the complainant is signatory to the application forms, thus he is estopped from raising the plea that the frequency of premium payment was Single Premium and not Annual. 

11]      More so, the complainant has not availed the Free Look Period option within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, as was provided to him, through policies documents Ann.R-1/A & Ann.R-2/A at Clause 15.

12]      As a result of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint. The same is dismissed accordingly.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.