Order-14.
Date-09/10/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Snigdha Kumar by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant bought a Bajaj Allianz Policy namely Premier Equity Growth on 01.11.2006, bearing Policy No.0027655790 and the insured amount of Rs.98,000/- at the rate of a NAV of Rs. 12.37 and the allocated Units were 8242 units and the said policy will be matured on November, 2016.
It is also stated that in clause 25(e) that the Surrender Charges for the policy will be zero percent for those policies which are of seven years or more and when the said policy became more than seven years old, the complainant decided to surrender the same and encash the value at the high market rate as the NAV at that time was at a very high rate and on good faith complainant went to the branch office at City Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata on 23.04.2014 but at the time of purchase the policy, the present office was situated at MACMET House, 10B, O.C. Ganguly Sarani, Kolkata and later it was shifted to the present above address but without any intimation to the policy holder.
Fact remains that in the present office complainant was introduced with an officer Ranjit Mukherjee to whom complainant stated the facts and after checking the said policy he was surprised and confusedto see a fund value of Rs. 2,629/- and there was a foreclosure of the said policy on 28.01.2014 and again a reversal of foreclosure on 03.03.2014.In this circumstances Mr. Mukherjee informed that there might be some technical error for which the fund assumed such a low value and tried to contact with the other office of the op.
Thereafter the complainant asked for a statement of her said policy and in return she received only few dates which did not give a clear idea about what was going on.So, complainant became more confused and frustrated and she sent a letter to the Customer Care Office of the ops on 09.05.2014 at their Head Office at Pune through Speed Post and requested him to look into the matter. In reply to the said letter ops sent a letter dated 19.05.2014 and stated about the deduction of various charges applicable to the said policy, such as Morality Charge, Policy Administration Charge, Fund Management Charge etc. which was not clearly disclosed to the complainant before or at the time of accepting the said policy which is arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in law and ops also stated that they are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA).
After several communications by the complainant to the op by letters, ops forcibly closed her account and issued a cheque of Rs. 9,800/- without informing or intimating the complainant before taking such step.But complainant refused to accept the same because both ops showed a fund value of Rs. 2,629/- only without any proper and justified clarification.But in fact it will be much more than the said amount as the complainant invested of Rs. 98,000/- for the said policy at the rate of NAV of Rs.12.37 and when the complainant decided to surrender the said policy, the NAV was Rs. 21.75 paisa.
So, ops illegally deducted the money from the said policy of the complainant on various heads and thereafter by issuing a cheque of Rs. 9,800/- to the complainant, ops did it without disclosing any reason whatsoever for doing the same.But complainant requested the ops several times to show the reason but ops sat tight over the matter and did not take care of the complainant’s request and thus ops deliberately cheated the complainant. So for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for deceitful manner of service, complainant as a senior citizen suffered mental pain and agony.So, she filed this complaint before this Forum for redressal and also for compensation against the ops.
On the other hand op Bajaj Allianz Insurance C.o. Ltd. & Others by filing written statement submitted that complainant entered into a Premier Equity Growth Policy bearing policy No.27655790 as a single premium of Rs. 98,000/- on 15.11.2006 which was a sum assured of Rs. 4,90,000/- and benefit term of 10 years.Ops also stated that the charge for insurance coverage depends on multiple factors i.e. the amount of sum assured and the current fund value, the attained age of the life assured, the occupation of the life assured and the health of the life assured and complainant when bought the policy was at the age of 56 years.
As per the terms of the policy, the charge for insurance coverage would be deducted at monthly intervals at the rate as applicable to the attained age of the life assured, through cancellation of units at the prevailing unit price on the date of first utilization and on subsequent monthly due dates the policy remains in force and the charge for insurance coverage may vary from year to year according to the age of the life assured at the time of deduction of the same.The mortality charge is applied at sum at risk which is same as life insurance coverage and the other applicable charges are – fund management charge, policy administration charge, switching charge, surrender charge and the recovery charge.
So, in the instant case the policy stood automatically terminated when the fund value becomes equal to Rs. 10,000/- as such the said account of the complainant stood foreclosed and a foreclosure amount of Rs. 9,800/- was paid back to the complainant by a cheque vide No. 996193 dated 27.09.2014.
It is also stated that complainant misread the provision of the Premier Equity Growth policy and the concerned officer of the Insurance Company at the office in City Centre, Kolkata made an attempt to seek reconfirmation of accounts after hearing out the concerns of the complainant and the foreclosure of the said policy on 28.01.2014 and reversal of foreclosure on 03.03.2014 have not impacted the complainant and moreover the said incident had occurred and duly rectified much before the complainant decided to visit the offices of the insurance company with the intention to surrender the policy on 23.04.2014..
Fact remains that the insurance company attempted to resolve all grievances of complainant by providing the explanations on the policy and as a result foreclosure vide emails dated 18.11.2014 and 10.12.2014 and also provided a copy of detailed statement of accounts of the policy.Insurance Company has acted as per terms of the policy and made all attempts to explain the acts in terms of the policy and the insurance company never deducted any money illegally on various heads or the terms are otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in law.But ops have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice or cheated the complainant in such a manner.
Ops also submitted that the relief prayed for by the complainant is not at all maintainable and complainant did not comply the terms and conditions of the policy and complainant submitted that ops violated the terms and conditions of the policy document is totally false and vexatious and there is no cause of action to raise any legal dispute and also the complaint is barred by limitation.So, the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After overall evaluation of the complaint and written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that it is admitted position that complainant purchased Bajaj Allianz Policy namely Premier Equity Growth on 01.11.2006, bearing Policy No.0027655790 and the insured amount of Rs.98,000/- at the rate of a NAV of Rs. 12.37 and the allocated Units were 8242 units and the said policy will be matured on November, 2016when the said policy became more than seven years old, the complainant decided to surrender the same and encash the value at the high market rate as the NAV at that time was at a very high rate and on good faith complainant went to the branch office at City Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata on 23.04.2014 and reported to one officer Ranjit Mukherjee when the concerned person checked the policy and found that fund is Rs. 2,629/-.
Thereafter she was surprised and again found that on 28.01.2014 there was foreclosure of the said policy and then again a reversal foreclosure on 03.03.2014.Complainant asked the said officer about his such sort of incident when the said officer stated that might be it was technical error and when complainant asked for settlement of policy but no statement was given.Complainant was shocked and totally confused of the matter and sent a letter to the Customer Care Office of the ops on 09.05.2014 at their Head Office at Pune through Speed Post and requested him to look into the matter.
In reply to the said letter ops sent a letter dated 19.05.2014 and they tried to justify the amount per minimum fund value and also stated about the deduction of various charges approved of the said policy and others.
But peculiar factor is that in the meantime foreclosure of the said account op issued a cheque of Rs. 9,800/- against policy amount of Rs. 98,000/-.But op did not give any satisfactory explanation and complainant is decided to surrender a policy at the rate of NAV of Rs. 21.75 paisa and when he invested the amount of Rs. 98,000/- for the said policy, NAV was Rs. 12.37 and in fact op illegally and without any reason tactically swallowed the entire amount of Rs. 98,000/- by releasing only Rs. 9,800/- and such an act is completely uncalled for and at the same time deceitful manner of trade for which complainant filed this complaint and most interesting factor is that it was Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Policy Single Payment Policy.
Truth is that complainant deposited Rs. 98,000/- single premium and basic benefit and sum assured was Rs.4,90,000/-.But peculiar factor is that after lapse of 7 years, complainant got only Rs. 9,800/-.But as per initial statement dated 16.11.2006, it is found that after deduction of cost of insurance fund administrative charge, new service charge, tax etc., the value was 8242.3249 units and as per said policy, it is clear that after day to day NAV is increased and as per policy condition, sum assured is the amount of benefit arrived at by multiplying premium by multiplier for which life assured is assured against the risk of death either from the date of commencement of policy or after expiry of deferment period of the policy and no doubt policy is unit linked and valuation of the said assest would be as per NAV and when complainant purchased practically 8242.3249 units and if that is fact, then there is no question of decreasing units under any circumstances.But op calculated it just like blood sucker and Rs. 98,000/- has become Rs. 9,800/- that has been refunded and no doubt the said theorization as adopted by the op is illegal, uncalled for because no doubt complainant deposited Rs. 98,000/- and NAV is increased day to day and unit no doubt such 8242 units would be increased.
Then op ought to have released the fund against unit 8242.But op has failed to prove for what reason the units 8242 was decreased at such rate and truth is that the complainant is a house wife, she purchased it with such assurance as given by the ops and she only put signature everywhere and in fact she was not given such details that ultimately Rs. 98,000/- shall be Rs. 9,800/-.
At the same time the foreclosure of the said policy on 28.01.2014 and further reversal of foreclosure on 03.03.2014 by the op is not at all assertable and considering the conduct of the op, it is clear that op as per their own choice did it and in fact in the particular case there is no scope for decreasing the amount of Rs. 98,000/- to the extent of Rs. 9,800/-.The whole factor and defence as taken by the op is completely uncalled for and no doubt complainant purchased 8242 units and for that units he is entitled to get such amount or op may refund the entire Rs. 98,000/- with such interest to the complainant.But the defence of the op is completely unacceptable and without any foundation for which we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get back the entire policy amount of Rs. 98,000/- along with interest as on the date of surrender of the said units 8242.
No doubt the entire act of the op is uncalled for, illegal and fact remains that such an act on the part of the op is deceitful manner of trade and in fact for the deceitful manner of trade as continued by the op, complainant has suffered much and there was no ground on the part of op to refund only Rs. 9,800/- against single premium of Rs. 98,000/-.
In view of the above fact and circumstances the complaint succeeds and no doubt complainant has been suffering very much for such sort of deceitful manner of trade on the part of the op and in the above circumstances this op is directed to refund and compensate a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- within one month from the date of this order to the complainant and for harassing the complainant in such a manner, complainant is also entitled to get some penal damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and to get litigation cost because op did not render any justice to the complainant but deceived the complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Op is hereby directed to pay and refund a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and also shall have to pay Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and also for deceiving the complainant in such a manner.
Op shall have to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- , litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- ,Rs. 10,000/- compensation i.e. in total Rs. 1,45,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for harassing the complainant, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the entire decree and if it is collected, same shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply this order, penal proceeding shall be started u/s 25 read with 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon op.
