Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 16.10.2015
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the application of the complainant by a reasoned and speeding order.
- To pay Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rs. Six Lac only ) as Compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to make modification/amendment in the policy by inserting/mentioning 1 year paying period in place of 5 years.
- To pat Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
- The complainant is only conservant with Hindi Language. He does not read or write the English Language except singing his name.
- The complainant is not sufficiently educated so as to be able to understood all the implications of questions contained in the proposal form and the answer to be given thereto. The proposal form was filed by the agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance company Ltd. and the complainant signed the form.
- It is relevant to mention that the complainant specifically instructed the agent to mention one year paying period in the proposal form before making his signature even though the paying period 5 years was written by the agent of Bajaj Allianz Life insurance company Ltd.
- The Insurance Company accepted the said proposal and issued the policy document bearing policy no. 0010792674. ( Vide Annexure – 1 and 2 )
- It is submitted that the complainant did not explained any terms and condition before finalization of the proposal and he issued the cheque of Rs. 1 lakh Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. ltd. for the payment of premium.
- After receiving the policy document, the complainant visited the office of insurance company situated at Exhibition Road, then concerning authority of Insurance company and the agent confirmed that the policy was under single premium.
- It is submitted that no any letter or notice was served to the complainant till the month of September 2010 whereby the complainant was requested to pay the renewal premium on due date within grace period.
- The complainant submitted the application for partial withdrawal in the office of Insurance Company situated at Exhibition Road, Patna then he was informed that his policy had been lapsed. But the reason of lapsed of policy was not disclosed/informed to the complainant.
- The complainant sent the application dated 12.08.2010 customer care Desk, Bajaj Allianz Insurance co. Ltd., Yerwada for refund of his premium and copies of the said letter were also sent to customer care desk, Pune grievance redressal officer, Pune and the opposite party no. 3 but it is very much unfortunate to state that the said application is still pending before the Insurance Company. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
- The complainant again sent the application dated 23.08.2010 to customer care Desk, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Yerwada, for refund of his premium and copies of the said letter were also sent to customer care desk, Pune grievance redressal officer, Pune and the opposite party no. 3 but the opposite parties are not bothered to redress the grievance of complainant by disposing of the said application as yet. ( Vide Annexure – 4 )
- It is duty of Insurance Company to act without inordinate delay. Even then the opposite parties have not bothered to redress the grievance of the complainant by disposing the aforesaid applications till date.
- In similar circumstances, the other insured situated on the similar footing of the complainant preferred the application for modifying the paying period or to refund the premium and the same was allowed by the opposite party no. 1.
- The grievance of the complainant is fair, just and reasonable.
- The cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this forum and this forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint.
- The present complaint is being filed within the period. Prescribed under section 24A of the Act.
Despite notices being served, the opposite parties neither filed any power nor written statement in opposition to the contention of the complainant made in the complaint petition and as such this case was heard ex – parte.
We have gone through the record.
It is needless to say that a registered notice was send to opposite parties and the registered notice did not returned hence a valid Tamila was declared vide order dated 08.02.2013. Several adjournment were allowed to enable the opposite parties and to file written statement but when opposite parties did not take any steps then vide order dated 22.05.2013. it was directed that the case will decided in ex-parte manner. It appears that several adjournment took place and as such the complainant was heard on 29.05.2015.
From bare perusal of annexure – 1 it appears that complainant has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- with the opposite parties as premium. The main grievance of the complainant is that the agent of the opposite parties informed him that he is being insured by way of single premium and after three years he will have liberty to withdraw the amount and necessary benefits. On proposal form only the signature of the complainant was obtained and he was assured that necessary details will be filed by agent. The complainant provided all the necessary details to the agent to fill the form to the agent. In Para – 7 of the complainant petition it has been asserted that after receiving the policy documents the complainant visited the office of Insurance Company situated at Exhibition Road, Patna with the agent and concerned authority confirmed that the policy was under single premium.
It is the case of the complainant that condition of the policy was not explained to the complainant by the agent who mislead him and impressed upon him that it was single premium policy.
Thereafter the complainant never received a notice till Sep. 2010 whereby he was requested to pay premium for renewal of the policy after some time it was informed that the policy has been lapsed. Thereafter the complainant filed annexure – 3 and 4 for withdrawal of money but no information was given to him.
There is no counter version of the opposite parties. We are impressed with the facts that despite filing of annexure – 3 and 4 it was the company which never responded because it was duty of opposite parties to pass any order or take any decision on Annexure 3 and 4 and inform the complainant about result. This shows deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
No purpose will be serve to repeat the same fact again and again. Hence we direct the opposite parties to pass appropriate order on Annexed Annexure 3 and 4.
If the aforesaid documents ( i.e. Annexure 3 and 4 ) are not traceable in the office of the opposite parties then the opposite parties are under liberty to demand the copies of aforesaid application i.e. annexure – 3 and 4 and then pass reasoned order.
The aforesaid order must be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. If the opposite parties failed to pass any order on Annexure 3 and 4 within period of three months then opposite parties will have to pay Rs. 100/- on each day till the aforesaid order is passed.
As the complainant is fighting this litigation since 2012 in this forum hence we direct opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation and litigation costs to the complainant within a period of three months. if the aforesaid amount is not paid within aforesaid period, then opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till it is finally paid.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President