BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    09^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

Complainant/s: -                           

1. Sri.Samuel Kanakaraj

S/o Jeshwanthraj.A.S.

Aged about 71 years

Retired Govt., Officer

2. Smt.Leela Kanakaraj

W/o Samuel Kanakaraj

Aged about 67 years

Retired School teacher

Both are R/at C-1,

Shanthi Kiran Apartments, No.52, Nandidurga Road, Bengaluru-46.

Inperson

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. Bajaj Allianz Life

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.1078, 2^nd Floor,

United Chambers Sathy

Road, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore,

Tamilnadu-641006.

2. Grievance Redressal Officer

Bajaj Allianz Life

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport

Road, Yerawada,

Pune-4110006.

3. Bajaj Allianz Life

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

354, 3^rd Floor, Ashwath

Nagar, Near Railway

Station, Bengaluru-47.

Rep. by Jojy Peter

Branch Manager

Prashantha.N.K. and Arun.D

By Adv.Sri.J.R.Jagadish

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant no.1 & 2 (hereafter called as Complainants) have filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after called as OPs) to pay a policy amount of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. and to award such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainants submit that, OP.1 is the insurance company and OP.2 & 3 are the staff of OP.1. OP.1 has issued the policy for Rs.4 lakhs in the name of their daughter Mercy Saritha under regular premium plan annually payable for a period of 20 years by parents/Complainants. The Complainants have evinced a keen interest to invest in this policy to get back full amount with dividend after a period of 3 years by saving income tax. During the course of negotiation, OPs have assured that it will get back their invested amount as per the insurance policy. Complainants prevailed over by false statements made intentionally by OPs, who were induced to invest Complainants retirement benefits to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs towards single policy under bonafide impression that the policy was single payment policy without understanding the motive of the deceit and fraud played against the Complainants and also highlighted that the investment in the policy was also exempted from Income Tax. The OPs duly filled the proposal forms for the policy in hurried manner without even subjecting the Complainants for medical investigations and without offering an opportunity to peruse the contents of the same. Complainants further submit that, OPs though having represented that the tenure of the policy has been 20 years with single premium policy, eligible for repayment after 3 annual years, without the knowledge and consent of the Complainants have extended the policy period for a period of 20 years without responding any letters till date inspite of the intimation of the Complainants about their annual income from all sources is nil as per the Income Tax. OPs have not responded till date inspite of several contacts and meetings. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OPs did appear and filed version. The sum and substance of the version is that, the Complainants are the parents of the policy holder/Mercy Saritha and they have no right to file a complaint against the OPs. The Complainants have paid an amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards policy in question of their daughter/Mercy Saritha in the year 2010 as the first premium and the policy was commenced from 28.08.10 and if there is any deficiency on the part of OPs, they ought to have approached this forum on or before 28.08.12 i.e. within 2 years from the date of alleged deficiency or at any cost on or before 28.08.13 i.e. within 2 years from the date of second premium was due by the policy holder. Further both the policy holder and OPs  are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, based upon the proposal given by the policy holder. The policy holder was under an obligation to pay the renewal premiums annually to keep the insurance policy alive and avail the benefits of the insurance policy. But in the present case, policy holder has failed and neglected to pay the renewal premiums, and hence the policy issued to her came to be foreclosed/lapsed for nonpayment of renewal premiums. The policy was issued to the policy holder only after she agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of the policy and upon agreeing the same the policy holder has paid the policy premium amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards her policy. To cover up her deficiency in not paying the regular premiums to the said policy has intentionally suppressed the said facts and have appeared before this forum with a malafide intention to make wrongful gain. Further, the policy holder was provided with the option of 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of the policy. As per the policy conditions, OPs are not liable to return any amount to the Complainants in view of the provision of clause of the policy bond. The policy holder took the policy after full understanding the policy conditions. Moreover the policy holder and the Complainants are not the laymen.  Being an advocate and educated persons are aware of insurance law and other policy conditions. View from any angle, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service. Hence on these grounds and other grounds OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

4. To substantiate the case, the Complainant no.1 filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 to 3 filed affidavit evidence. The Complainants filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant No.1 & 2 is maintainable ?

2. Whether the Complainants prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

3. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- Does not survive for consideration

Point No.3:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OPs.  The available materials on record goes to show that, the policy in question bearing No.0184073388 has been availed by the daughter of the Complainant no.1 & 2 name called Smt.Mercy Saritha W/o Joseph Moganti. The said policy is towards regular premium plan dtd.28.08.10. According to the contents of the said policy, the

Date of commencement of risk: 30.08.10

Regular premium: Rs.4 lakhs

Frequency of payment: annually

Policy term: 20 years

Due date of last premium: 28.08.29

Premium paying term: 20 years

Sum assured: Rs.20 lakhs

Minimum death benefit: Rs.20 lakhs

Maturity benefit: fund value

Maturity date: 28.08.30

Nominee name: Leela Kanakaraj (Complainant no.2

herein)

8. The policy holder executed the General Power of Attorney/Doc.7 on 16.12.2000 in the name of Complainant no.1/her father, to act on behalf of her as: to deal with the flat mentioned therein, to represent before Bengaluru University for collection of certificate; to open NRI bank account; to receive/remind any debt due and owing to her by any person, company or association etc., Another General Power of Attorney/Doc.8 executed on 20.03.14 in the name of Complainant no.2/her mother, to act on behalf of her with regard to deeds, transactions, financial dealings including Bajaj Allianz Life insurance company ltd., etc., The GPA dtd.20.03.14 was executed by the policy holder after filing of this complaint. On going through the GPA dtd.20.03.14, it is clear that, as on the date of filing this complaint i.e. on 13.11.13, the policy holder never executed the GPA to Complainant no.2 to file this complaint before this forum. Further in the GPA dtd.16.12.2000 said to have been executed by the daughter/policy holder for the Complainant No.1 is subsilent in the said policy. Looking to the contents of the cause title as well as the contents of the complaint, neither the Complainant no.1 nor 2 stated that, this complaint has been filed in the capacity of the GPA executed by the policy holder/Mercy Saritha.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the OPs stating that, the Complainants have no locus standi to file this complaint. Utmost, it is the policy holder who ought to have been file this complaint as against the OPs if she really aggrieved. We find there is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs. This forum also come across with the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the applicability, legality and also to what extent the GPA can be executed in the non-reportable decision in Civil Appeal No.2869-2870/2010 in the case of Mohinder Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singh, dtd.01.10.19. The sum and substance of the text of the said judgment is that, the power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of matters of which the principal alone can have personal  knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross­examined. In the light of the said decision, neither the Complainant no.1 nor 2 are competent to depose on behalf of the policy holder. In this view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant no.1 & 2 in their individual capacity is not maintainable. Hence, complaint filed by the Complainants is liable to be dismissed keeping liberty to the policy holder to agitate her claim in accordance with law, if she really aggrieved. Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

10. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly it is answered.

11. Point no.3: In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant No.1 & 2 as against the OPs is dismissed as not maintainable. Anyhow, an option is left open to the policy holder to get redress her remedy before the proper forum, if she really aggrieved.

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.  

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 09^th day of October 2019)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants dated.07.05.14

Sri.Samuel Kanakaraj, Complainant no.1

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainants:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs dated.14.05.14

Sri.M.Aravinda, South Zonal Legal Manager   

Copies of Documents produced by OP

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT