STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 125 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 12.04.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 01.08.2012 |
Bhupinder Nagpal, son of Late Sh. Ram Chand, R/o 3233, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. ……Appellant/complainant V e r s u s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited 1. SCO No.139-140, 2nd Floor, Sector 8 C, Chandigarh 2. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh.Satish Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the respondents. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.1, approached the complainant, and suggested him to take the policy ‘INVESTGAIN GOLD’ dated 28.6.2003, Annexure C-1, covering sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs. The complainant agreed to take the said policy, as there was an offer of compound reversionary benefit of 3% p.a., on the basic sum assured, which came to be Rs.15,000/- per year, besides other benefits and returns. In the year 2011, the complainant came to know that the reversionary bonus was not being paid to him, by Opposite Party No.1, for which a complaint was lodged by him, with it. Opposite Party No.1, in response, sent a letter dated 28.6.011 Annexure C-2, to the complainant, whereby he was informed that his complaint had been registered under Legal Department-Police Complaint, with them, and his case had been assigned to Mr. Amit Mehta, for settlement of his grievance. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to receive letter dated 16.6.2011, Annexure C-3, from Opposite Party No.1, wherein, it was stated that the grievance raised by him, was not inconsonance with the terms and conditions of the policy, hence it was not able to consider the same. Accordingly, the complainant through his Advocate, sent a legal notice dated 01.8.2011, Annexure C-4, to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, stated that the complainant, himself, opted for the plan with the premium paying term of 10 years, as per the proposal form, Annexure R-I, and, thereafter, the Insurance Policy, in question, was issued to him. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1, ever agreed to pay reversionary bonus of 3%, of the sum assured. It was further stated that the reversionary bonus was liable to be paid, either at the time of maturity of the policy, or in the event of death of the policy holder, as per the terms & conditions of the policy. It was further stated that the Policy Schedule, relied upon by the complainant, was a forged & fabricated document, as the same did not bear any number and carried various inconsistencies. It was further stated that the reversionary bonus rate, as a percentage of the sum assured, was to be declared by the Company, at the end of each financial year, and could not be pre-determined. It was further stated that the reversionary bonus declared from time to time, under the policy was required to be added to the policy, in accordance with the terms & conditions thereof. It was further stated that no bonus had fallen due, to the complainant, and nothing was payable to him. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that as per the terms and conditions of the policy Annexure C-1, the Company may declare a rate of reversionary bonus at the end of financial year, which was to be payable, when the sum assured was payable i.e. at the time of maturity. It was further concluded, that since the policy had not matured, the complaint was premature. 6. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed, as stated above, in the opening paragraph of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the policy aforesaid was purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that the policy documents were received by the complainant. He further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the reversionary bonus was required to be declared by the Company, at the end of each and every financial year, and, as such, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lac, on account of delay, on the part of Opposite Parties, in not making the payment of reversionary bonus, and Rs. 1 lac as penalty for their act and conduct. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were also liable to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, at the hands of the Opposite Parties and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complaint was premature. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, in dismissing the complaint, on the ground, that the same was premature, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the complainant was not entitled to the payment of reversionary bonus, at the end of each financial year, but, on the other hand, he could become entitled to the same, only at the time of maturity of the policy or in the event of death, as per the terms and conditions thereof. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties, or indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that since the complainant did not become entitled to any reversionary bonus, at the time of filing the complaint, the question of physical harassment and mental agony, did not at all arise. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the complaint being premature, was liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, as such, the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the policy ‘INVESTGAIN GOLD’ dated 28.6.2003, Annexure C-1, from Opposite Party No.1. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. According to Annexure C-1, the policy document, the policy holder, was entitled to granted benefits, as mentioned at page 5, under the heading “Basic Benefits”, which reads as under:- “Compounded Reversionary Bonus @3% per annum on Basic Sum Assured.” At page 7 of Annexure C-1, under the heading “Benefits”, it is recorded as under:- “a) Reversionary Bonus : At the end of each financial year, the Company may declare a rate of reversionary bonus expressed as a percentage. This percentage shall be applied to the sum assured plus existing declared reversionary bonuses to determine the amount of reversionary bonus to be added to the policy at the year-end. Reversionary bonus, once declared, shall vest in the policy and shall be payable along with and as and when the sum assured is payable.” 12. The question arises, as to whether, according to the afore-extracted terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant became entitled to the reversionary bonus, at the end of each financial year, or was to become entitled, at the time of maturity of the policy, or in the event of death. The terms and conditions extracted above, clearly go to show that the Company may declare the rate of bonus at the end of each financial year, which shall be payable, when the sum assured was payable. As stated above, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy. This Commission cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy document Annexure C-1. The amount of reversionary bonus, if declared by the Company, at the end of each financial year, was to be applied to the sum assured, and payable at the time, when the said sum (assured sum), was payable. The District Forum was right, in holding that since the policy had not matured, the complainant was not entitled to any reversionary bonus, or any other relief, as there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding that the complaint was premature, and could be maintained at the time of maturity of the policy, in case, any sum assured or reversionary bonus, was not paid to the complainant, at that time. In these circumstances, the order of the District forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 14. The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 16. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. August 1, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
