Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 556.
Instituted on : 31.10.2019
Decided on : 15.09.2021
Naveen Kumar aged 36 years s/o Sh. Rajbir singh R/o village Dadanpur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz Life insurance Co. Ltd. Office at Ground Floor, Dalal Complex, Opp. Liberty Cinema, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its branch manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased two life insurance policies bearing number 0349860033 sum assured 1756000/- and bearing number 0345543101 sum assured Rs.500000/-. Complainant was not aware of terms and conditions of the policies as the terms were not told to complainant. Complainant contacted the agent of opposite party about the policies and only then he came to know about the terms and conditions of the policies. He was surprised to know that the date of maturity of alleged policies was 20.09.2083 and 22.05.2083 and amount of premium 313416/- and 56508/- respectively. Complainant is unable to pay such a huge amount to the respondent company. So he approached the respondent to refund the deposited amount but the officials of opposite party did not give ear on the request of complainant and complainant is not at fault in any manner. The act of non-payment of the deposited sum i.e. Rs.369924/- by the respondent is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 20.09.2019 but till date any claim amount has not been paid to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.369924/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that the policies in question were purchased by the complainant at his own sweet will and he has never reported any miss-selling before 24.07.2019. The complainant was well within his right to get the policy cancel, without any deduction within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, which the complainant failed to do and has never approached answering respondent within the free look period of 15 days and now he has filed the present complaint, just to harass answering respondent. The complainant had purchased the policies on 23.05.2018 and 21.09.2018 and had enjoyed the coverage risk. It was the complainant who had opted not to renew the policies and thus both the policies are in lapse status due to non deposit of the 2nd premium. No act and conduct on the part of answering respondent is illegal, null & void and there no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and also tendered document Ex.C6 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 06.09.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.08.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In fact two life insurance policies bearing number 0349860033 sum assured 1756000/-and bearing number 0345543101 sum assured Rs.500000/- have been purchased by the proposer Sh. Rajbir Singh in the name of his son Naveen Kumar. We have perused Ex.R1 and Ex.R3 minutely. These policies have been issued by the respondent officials after proper investigations. There is a major discrepancy in the facts mentioned in these two policies. In application no.5948931507 the proposed insured was Mr. Naveen Kumar and proposer of this policy was Rajbir Singh and against this application a policy no.0349860033 has been issued on 21.09.2018. Thereafter vide another application no.5948882379 the proposed insured is Mr. Naveen Kumar and proposer is Rajbir Singh and the policy bearing no.0345543101 was issued on dated 23.05.2018. The perusal of both the proposal forms itself shows that the contents of both the applications/policies are different regarding income, education and mobile number etc. In application no.5948931507 Ex.R1, the income of the proposer is mentioned as Rs.775000/-, the education is Matriculation and the mobile no. is mentioned as 9718472400 and the policy was issued on 21.09.2018 which is placed on record as Ex.R2. On the other hand, in second application No.5948882379 Ex.R3, the income of the proposer is mentioned as Rs.400000/-, the education is Graduation and Higher and the mobile no. is mentioned as 7532069064 and the policy was issued on 23.05.2018 which is placed on record as Ex. R4. Even the date of birth of Proposed Insured Naveen Kumar and proposer Rajbir Singh is mentioned as 11 March 1983 in both the policies. Only the nature of duties is mentioned same. The age of life assured and proposer cannot be same who have the relation of father and son. As per application Ex.R1, the amount of instalment premium is mentioned as Rs.313416/- and as per application Ex.R3, the amount of instalment premium is mentioned as Rs.56508/- and the mode of payment is yearly. The first policy was issued on 23.05.2018 on the basis of application Ex.R3. If we believe the income of proposer which is mentioned as Rs.4lac, it is not possible for the him to deposit the two premiums of Rs.313416 + Rs.56508/-i.e. total Rs.369924/- yearly. Meaning thereby there is misrepresentation on the part of opposite party in selling the policies.
6. Moreover, it was not in the knowledge of complainant that the alleged policies have been purchased by the father of the complainant. He came to know about the same after the death of his father Sh. Rajbir Singh who had died on 07.01.2019 as per death certificate placed on record Ex.C6. After the death of his father, complainant came to know about the policies and he made a representation before the opposite parties to refund the premium amount deposited by his father, which is placed on record by the opposite party as Ex.R6. As per letter Ex.R6, complainant has also submitted that the policy was sold to the father of complainant with premium term of 10 years and 20 years instead of one year by giving wrong information and the mobile numbers mentioned in both the policies were also not related to the complainant, due to which company could not contact the complainant. From the alleged documents placed on record it is proved that the policy was issued by the opposite party by giving wrong information to the father of complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is liable to refund of amount of premium paid by the complainant after deduction of 10% amount of alleged premium as the complainant has enjoyed the coverage risk for one year.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the alleged amount of Rs.369924/- less 10% i.e. Rs.332932/-(Rupees three lac thirty two thousand nine hundred and thirty two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.10.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.09.2021.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...................................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
