BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sukhmandeep Kaur d/o Sh.Ajit Singh Kundi, r/o H.No.2319, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.    Bajaj Allianz Ltd., Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager/General Manager, SCO No.45, Pocket I, Manimajra, NAC, Chandigarh – 160101.

2.    Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its CEO/CGG, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

3.    Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its MD/CMD, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                     PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                   MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.R.M.Dutta, Counsel for the complainant.

                Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for the OPs

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No.110271251 from OP No.1 by paying premium of Rs.32,000/- on 17.10.2008. It is averred that the complainant was in need of money, so she requested the OPs for refund of the amount, but they refused. 

              It has been stated that the OPs deducted 55% of the deposited amount i.e. Rs.17,600/- and invested only 45% i.e. Rs.14,400/- and allotted 1421.3799 units only @Rs.10.1310 per unit of the face value of Rs.10/- each. The OPs again kept on deducting the charges from the balance amount, which is against IRDA norms. Later on the OP Company sent a cheque of Rs.4549/- dated 24.10.2011 (Ann. C-3) only, which was not encashed and illegally deducted rest of the premium amount. A legal notice dated 16.12.2011 was sent to the OPs, which was duly replied. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as deficiency in service on their part.

2]           OPs No.1 to 3 filed joint reply pleading therein that the complainant herself proposed for unit linked regular premium “New Unit Gain” plan with Yearly Premium amount of Rs.32,000/- for a period of 20 years, but failed to pay the regular premiums.  The complainant never made any effort to get the policy revived during the revival period of 2 years, hence the contract under the policy stands terminated and the payment of Rs.4549/- was made to her through cheque.  It has been further pleaded that no request was ever received from the complainant for the refund of initial premium.  It is stated  that as per the terms & conditions of the policy, no withdrawals can be made within the initial lock in period of 3 years. It is also stated that the complainant received the policy document along with the terms & conditions, so she was well aware of the statutory provision of free look period of 15 days for returning the policy if she was not satisfied with it terms & conditions.  As per the terms & conditions of the policy, minimum 3 year premiums should be paid for surrender and if the premiums not paid, the policy lapses and in the present case, the complainant paid only one premium and thereafter did not pay any premium, therefore, her policy had lapsed. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Unit Linked Insurance Policy bearing No.110271251 from OP Insurance Company by paying single premium of Rs.32,000/-.

6]           The contention of the complainant is that she was in need of money, as such approached OPs for refund of the amount whereupon she came to know that the OPs invested only 45% of his premium amount and made deduction of 55%  of the amount and later on, when sought refund of entire amount, they sent a cheque of Rs.4549/- only which is illegal & unjustified on their part.

7]           It is not disputed that complainant did not receive the policy documents.  Annexure R-2 is the policy document, which shows that the complainant could return the policy document to the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, as stipulated under Clause 15 - Free Look Period, mentioned therein, which reads as under:-

              “     Free Look Period

Within 15 days of the receipt of this Policy, the Policyholder may, if dissatisfied with it for any reason, give the Company a written notice of cancellation along with reasons for the same, and return the Policy Document to the Company, subject to which the Company shall send the Policyholder a refund comprising the first Regular Premium paid less the proportionate risk premium for the period the Life Assured was on cover and the expenses incurred on medical examination and stamp duty charges…………..”

8]           Further at Clause 32(d) - Fund Provision of the Policy Document (Ann.R-2), the Premium Allocation Charges have been mentioned. Therefore, once the complainant herself had failed to return the policy document within above said free look period of 15 days, now she cannot allege that she was not aware about the premium allocation charges and other charges levied by the OP Company and sought refund of entire premium amount.  

9]           Moreover, the complainant herself has singed the proposal form annexed as Ann.R-1.  Once the complainant is signatory to the proposal form and has also received the insurance policy & other documents, she cannot, at this later stage, wriggle out from those terms & conditions, which she had already accepted.  Instead, she is bound by those terms & conditions of the insurance policy.

10]          As far as termination of policy is concerned, the OP Company was having the right to terminate it in view of Clause 25 (iv) – Termination Conditions of Policy Document, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that “Upon the Policy remaining lapsed per Section 5(b) for two years or up to third Policy Anniversary, whichever is later.”

11]          We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil P. Tadkalkar, 1(1996) CPJ 159 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“Moreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia paid by him during the period of the policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk.  If during this period the Complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the policies even though only some fraction of the premia would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the policies the Complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two policies.  It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the policies.”

12]          In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.