: J U D G M E N T :
This is an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by Nikhil Chandra Das against Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Bowbazar, Krishnagar, nadia. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant purchased a Bajaj Allianz new Family Gain –II policy on 04.02.10 from the OP Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. being No. 0152747051 for twenty years. The premium was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- each year. The complainant paid three premiums on 04.02.10, 04.02.11 and on 07.02.12 respectively in total Rs. 30,000/- and no other premium has deposited by him due to his family problem. On 07.02.13 the complainant prayed to the OP to withdraw his total deposited amount but only Rs. 20,713/- was paid by the OP on 14.02.13. As the OP did not pay the total amount of Rs. 30,000/- the complainant contacted OP’s office several times but to effect. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case praying the balance amount of Rs. 9287/-, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of the suit.
The OP, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Krishnagar has contested the case by filing written version on 16.09.14 challenging the contentions of the complainant and denied all the allegations.
The sum and substance of the written version is as following:-
The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no cause of action. The complaint is misconceived, mala fide motivated. The complaint has no locus standi to file the present case. The complainant entered into a contract with the OP under Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain II policy from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for twenty years but the complainant paid only thrice @ Rs. 10,000/- each year totalling Rs. 30000/-. The complainant after executing the ‘Surrender Request Form’ received the net asset value i.e., NAV. On 15.02.13 the NAV was Rs. 20,713/- so the complainant was paid back the same amount. Thus, the OP has no deficiency in service and the complaint should be rejected.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OPs?
- Point No. 2: Is there any deficiency on the part of OPs?
- Point No. 3: Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
The record gives indication that the complainant is substantiating his claim submitted certain documents and OPs also submitted number of documents for supporting their case. We have perused all documents along with complaint, written version, brief notes of arguments etc. It has become settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commission that whenever a person approaches the jurisdiction of a Forum for the purpose of having any relief, he/she is under obligation to prove himself/herself to be a consumer. In the instant case the complainant paid the consideration amount i.e., the premium amount of Rs. 30,000/- in office of OP and in this respect the office of OP issued free receipts. The OP received the consideration amount i.e., aforesaid premium amount from the complainant. So under the above facts and circumstances and the status between the complainant and OP, the complainant is to be treated as a consumer as per provision Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is admitted that the term of premium was 20 years. It is also clear that the filed up policy from being number – 023953818 was signed by the complainant himself. Furthermore, that in declaration, the complainant has signed the aforesaid policy form after fully understanding the significance of the proposed contract in relation of Section 45 of Insurance Act. So it is clear that there is a contract between the complainant and the Insurance Company. It is also clear fact and admitted position that the complainant paid the premium of Rs. 10,000/- on 04.02.2010, Rs. 10,000/- on 04.02.2011, Rs. 10,000/- on 07.02.2012 i.e., total amount of Rs. 30,000/- and to that effect the OP Insurance Company issued the three receipts. It is admitted position that the complainant wrote a letter addressed to OP Branch Manager on 07.02.2013 in respect of withdrawal of policy No. 0152747051. As per terms and conditions of surrender value is allowed only after completion of three policy year. So it is admitted that the complainant is entitled to get surrender value. As per terms and conditions of the policy the surrender value is to be calculated on the basis of NAV, i.e., net asset value. The OP Insurance Company on the basis of NAV paid Rs. 20,713/- to the complainant. As per our view, the OP Insurance Company had done just and proper in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore, on the basis of aforementioned observation we have come to conclusion that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company. The complainant is not entitled to get any further relief as prayed for against OP Insurance Company. All the points mentioned above are hereby decided on the basis of above observations.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/22014/73 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
