Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/122/2013

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Kanwar Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurancce Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Chamrori

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.122 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 18.02.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 27.02.2017

Sanjeev Kumar aged about 28 years son of Shri Kanwar Pal, resident of village and post office Chamrori, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. first Floor, Ganpati Building, Jagadhri Road, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.   

                                                                                                            …Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Vijay Chamrori Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

.  

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sanjeev Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant obtained life insurance policy from the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP Insurance Company) vide No. 139089057 with the date of commencement as 11.11.2009 and payment of yearly premium was Rs. 12,000/-. The complainant had completed all the necessary formalities in this regard and had paid the three installments and the last third installment was paid on 28.11.2011 against valid receipt. The complainant after payment of three yearly installments for a total sum of Rs. 36,000/- decided to surrender the policy and get the amount paid by him and so he applied for surrender of the policy on 05.12.2012 and the request was accordingly made and a letter on the same day was issued to the complainant showing the amount payable as Rs. 26,943.85 and the complainant was told that he will receive the cheque for that amount after some day days. The complainant inquired from the OP Insurance Company as to why less amount is being paid to him whereupon he was told that a penalty at the rate of 12.36% has been deducted. The complainant has not even received any cheque for the amount offered by the OP Insurance Company till date. The penalty has been wrongly charged by the OP Insurance Company, whereas the complainant is entitled to receive back the entire deposited amount of Rs. 36,000/- alongwith interest. Lastly prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to refund the actual amount of Rs. 36,000/- with interest regarding insurance policy surrendered and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the OP Insurance Company as the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 26,989/- stands already paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 976733 dated 30.01.2013. The said amount of surrender value was received by the complainant without any protest and the said cheque stands already encashed by the complainant knowing well that he had received the full and final claim under the policy. Hence, the OP Insurance Company has discharged its contractual obligations and the contract of Insurance stands terminated upon payment of permissible surrender value; complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct. The complainant is an educated and prudent person, himself proposed for a regular premium Unit Linked “ Unit Gain Plus Gold” policy vide proposal dated 10.11.2009 on the life of his minor son master Arman Kumar duly signed in English Language and opted to pay yearly premiums for a period of 20 years without any coercion or force. The policy No. 0139089057 was issued with date of commencement as 11.11.2009 with premium payment and benefit term of 20 years; the complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct as he never challenged the charges and other terms of the policy for more than 3 years and continued to enjoy the benefits without lodging any protest regarding the charges expressly mentioned in the policy document received by the complainant. The complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation period as per the provisions of Protection of Policy Holders’ interest Regulation, 2002, to review the terms and conditions and charges etc. expressly mentioned in the policy document received by him but he did not challenge the terms of the policy and has now concocted a false story to derive illegal financial gains; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the surrender value under the policy has rightly and legally been calculated and paid to him strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The relevant clauses of policy terms and conditions under the heading Surrender Value & Surrender Charges” may kindly be referred to. The complainant himself proposed for the Bajaj Allianz Unit Linked Regular Premium “Unit Gain Plus Gold” plan of the OP on the life of his minor son Master Arman Kumar after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks and terms and conditions of plan proposed for the said policy vide proposal dated 10.11.2009 and opted to pay regular yearly premium of Rs. 12,000/-. The complainant has challenged the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance duly approved by the IRDA which requires a full scale trial in recording the detailed evidence, so this Forum have no jurisdiction and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence, his evidence was closed by court order on dated 15.06.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant tendered his short affidavit and photo copy of proposal form Ex.C-1, Photo copy of policy document Ex. C-2 in support of his complaint.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shiv Prasad Singh, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of surrender/partial withdrawal request Form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter towards thanks for regular premium plan dated 16.11.2009 alongwith schedule as well as receipt and terms and conditions as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy “Unit Gain Plus Gold bearing No. 0139089057 on 11.11.2009 and paid Rs. 12,000/- to the OP Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid three installments regularly of Rs. 12,000/- each to the OP Insurance Company during the first three policy years. The only version of the complainant is that it was assured on behalf of the OP Insurance Company that after three years, if the complainant wish to withdraw the said policy, the OP Insurance Company will make payment of the full amount but all the assurance given by the official of the OP Insurance Company turned out to be false and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 36,000/- invested by the complainant in the policy in question alongwith all the benefits.

8                      On the other hand, counsel for the OP argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 20 years but the complainant paid only three yearly installment of Rs. 12,000/- each and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and surrendered the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 26,989/- stands already paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 976733 dated 30.01.2013 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount stands received by the complainant without raising any protest towards full and final settlement of the permissible surrender value under the policy. Thus, the OP have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy strictly in accordance with the law and nothing more is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy. Further, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued that the complainant has invested his money in Unit Link Policy called Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed.

             Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R-1 bearing No. 0139089057 dated 11.11.2009, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold in the name of his son issued by the OP Insurance Company in the year 2009. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

10.                   Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. The same view has been held in case titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium.

11.                   Further, the complainant has received the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 26,989/- which stands already paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 976733 dated 30.01.2013 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount received by the complainant without raising any protest as has been mentioned in the affidavit Annexure RW/A and the complainant has not denied the aforesaid version of the OP Insurance Company after filing re-joinder. It means the OP Insurance Company has discharged its contractual obligations under the policy in question.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the OP had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 27.02.2017

 

                                 (S.C.SHARMA )                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                  MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNANAGAR