Date of Filing: 10.05.2010<br /> Date of Order: 25.01.2011<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1044 OF 2010<br /> Aravind M. Neglur<br /> S/o. M.H. Neglur<br /> No. 14, 10th Main, Bandappa Garden<br /> Gokula, Bangalore Complainant<br /> V/S¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br /> 1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> II Floor, Akshaya Commercial Complex<br /> No. 26, Victoria Road, Bangalore 560047<br /> Rep. by its Board of Directors<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada<br /> Pune 411 006<br /> Rep. by Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant subscribed to life insurance policy of opposite party and had invested Rs. 60,000/- as on February 2009. After four years the complainant decided to terminate the policy and get the surrender value thereof. According to statement complainant was to be paid a sum of Rs. 63,620/- as fund value on 05.02.2010. Opposite party deposited sum of Rs. 52,683/- as against Rs. 63,620/- in SB account of the complainant maintained in the SBM, Bangalore. Complainant received amount under protest. Opposite party without any lawful justification deducted sum of Rs. 10,967/-. Same is unjustified. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 10,937/- with interest. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed version stating that as per the Statement of account surrender value of the policy was Rs. 62,559/-. Surrender value of the policy shall be equal to the regular premium fund value less the amount of surrender charges. As per the clause 37(f) of the policy terms, the surrender charge of Rs. 9,876/- is deducted and sum of Rs. 52,683/- is paid to the complainant. Complaint is misconceived and baseless. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Documents are also produced by the complainant.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs. 10,937/-?<br /> 6. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant has taken life insurance policy from opposite party. He had paid Rs. 20,000/- initially. Thereafter, he paid 2 installments of Rs. 20,000/- each. In this way total investment made by the complainant with opposite party stood at Rs. 60,000/- as on February 2009. The complainant has produced statement of account as on 05.02.2010 issued by the opposite party itself. The said document is at Ex. C1. As per the document of opposite party itself the fund value of the policy was shown as Rs. 63,620/- and it is further stated that the statement is computer generated letter, no signature is required. It is further stated “Account Value” is based on NAV available on 05.02.2010. Account value of Rs. 63,734/- is shown in the statement of account. The complainant has produced another letter of opposite party at Ex. C-2. As per this letter dated 12.02.2010 sum of Rs. 52,683/- had been credited to the account of the complainant in the SBM through cheque. The learned advocate for the complainant argued as per the statement of opposite party itself as per the Ex. C1 the fund value was Rs. 63,620/- as on 05.02.2010, whereas the opposite party had credited only Rs. 52,683/- on 12.02.2010 which is less than the fund value declared by opposite party itself. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that complainant is still entitled for Rs. 10,937/- from opposite party. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned advocate for the complainant. The opposite party has not explained properly as to why Rs. 10,937/- was deducted in the fund value declared by the opposite party itself. On 05.02.2010 the fund value of the policy was Rs. 63,620/- to the account of the complainant. The opposite party has given cheque only for Rs. 52,683/-. Therefore, by the documents of opposite party itself it appears that opposite party is deficient in service in not giving entire value of the refund. The opposite party is relied upon clause 37(f) of policy terms and conditions. By reading this clause it is clear that surrender charge is applied on capital units only and recovered by the redemption of capital units. This surrender charge is applicable only on capital units. Under definition clause “Capital unit” as defined under the policy terms and conditions “is a unit allocated in respect of regular premium, payable in the first policy year”. By this definition it is clear that fund value declared by the opposite party in this case does not come under the definition of capital unit. Because capital unit definition applies only during the first policy year. Whereas the complainant in this case had given yearly 3 premium of total amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, in this case the fund value cannot be treated as capital unit and surrender charges relied upon by the opposite party as per clause 37(f) applies only on capital units. Therefore, the question of deducting surrender charges in this case by the opposite party does not arise since, the complainant has paid 3 year premium. The opposite party could have refunded the entire fund value of Rs. 63,620/-, but instead of that it has given only Rs. 52,683/- which is less than the fund value. Therefore, the complainant is right and justified in demanding the balance amount of Rs. 10,937/- from the opposite party. The complaint is fit to be allowed. The complainant being a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act and the said legislation being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers in the country, the complainant’s interest shall have to be protected by giving direction to the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 10,937/- which had been wrongly held up. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,937/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />