DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.409 of 24-08-2012
Decided on 24-01-2013
Harbhajan Singh aged about 58 years s/o Chanan Singh r/o Vill.Poohla, District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office:2nd Floor, above ICICI Bank, Opposite Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Branch Head.
2.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Head Office: GE Plaza, Ground Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411 006, through its Managing Director/Chairman/G.M.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Karamjit Singh, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.M.L Bansal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the allurement of the opposite party No.1 the complainant has purchased the ’Unit Linked Insurance’ policy known as ’BAJAJ ALLIANZ FORTUNE PLUS’ plan. The complainant has paid one time premium of Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum and the sum assured was Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant was conveyed by the opposite party No.1 that it shall depend upon his will either to remain investor in the said plan without depositing any further premium for a period of 5 years or to get the refund of his amount alongwith expected income anytime after the completion of any one year/s. The officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on the various blank papers and printed forms, without explaining the contents thereof to him and also managed to obtain the personal information about his date of birth, identity proof, residential address, contact number etc. and he deposited Rs.50,000/- with them. After few days the officials of the opposite parties sent policy No.011933606 commencing from 9.2.2009 to the complainant alongwith repayment schedule showing the amount payable by them after the completion of each year. Except the repayment schedule the opposite parties never issued other terms and conditions to the complainant. The complainant remained investor in the said policy/plan for a period of 3 years under the bonafide impression that as and when he is in need of money, he can apply for the same and the opposite parties shall pay the amount to him as per repayment schedule. After the completion of 3 years in the month of February 2012, the complainant was in need of money, so he approached the opposite party No.1 and requested them to pay him the amount as per their repayment schedule i.e. Rs.86,400/- but the opposite parties have sent him a cheque of Rs.50,380/- only in place of Rs.86,400/-. The complainant again approached the officials of the opposite party No.1 and requested them to pay him the remaining amount but they have refused to refund his remaining amount of Rs.36,020/-. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to refund the remaining amount of Rs.36,020/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties as he has himself failed to discharge his contractual obligations under the said policy and has failed to pay the yearly regular premiums due on 9.2.2010 & onwards as stipulated in the contract of the insurance. Thus the said policy lapsed w.e.f. 9.2.2010 but the complainant has not revived his policy within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of the first unpaid premium which was expired on 8.2.2012. The contract of the policy No.0119333606 stands terminated in accordance with the terms & conditions of the said policy and permissible Surrender Value amounting to Rs.50,380/- are already paid to the complainant vide cheque No.488144 dated 25.2.2012 and the same was duly dispatched to him vide speed post No.EA907045142IN dated 12.3.2012 and nothing more is payable to him. The opposite parties have acted strictly in accordance with the terms & conditions of the said policy and there is no deficiency in service on their part as defined under section 2 (1) (g) of the ’Act’. The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per the provision of Section 24-A of the ’Act’. The policy in question was issued in February 2009 in accordance with the proposal dated 31.1.2009 submitted by the complainant duly signed in English language and the original policy bonds containing express terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance was duly received by him. The receipt of the policy document was never disputed by the complainant for more than three and half year and did not lodge any complaint for all these years with regard to the non receipt of the policy bond. The complainant has not availed the option of free look cancellation period if he is not satisfied with the said policy. The opposite parties denied that they have ever promised to pay Rs.86,400/- after 3 years. The amount of Rs.50,380/- has already been refunded to the complainant.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the policy bearing No.0119333606 was purchased by the complainant after paying the premium of Rs.50,000/- and sum assured was Rs.2,50,000/-. The commencement date of the said policy was 9.2.2009. The complainant applied for the refund of the said policy after the completion of 3 years in February 2012. The amount of Rs.50,380/- has been refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.488144 dated 25.2.2012 and the same was duly dispatched to him vide speed post No.EA907045142IN dated 12.3.2012.
6. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant alleged that he was assured by the opposite parties that after the completion of 3 years the amount of Rs.86,400/- will be given to him but only the amount of Rs.50,380/- has been sent to him by them. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the remaining amount of Rs.36,020/- from the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand the submissions of the opposite parties are that the said policy has lapsed w.e.f. 9.2.2010 as the complainant has not paid the regular annual premium. Moreover the complainant has not revived his policy within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of the first unpaid premium which was expired on 8.2.2012. The contract of the policy No.0119333606 stands terminated in accordance with the terms & conditions of the said policy and permissible Surrender Value amounting to Rs.50,380/- was refunded to the complainant. At no stage the opposite parties have ever promised to pay Rs.86,400/- after the completion of 3 years as alleged by the complainant.
8. The complainant has relied upon Ex.C1, a perusal of Ex.C1 shows that this is sheet one of ’BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD and the sum assured was given Rs.2,50,000/-(First Year)’ and a detail has also been given regarding the Year; Premium; Withdrawal; C.Amount; Interest and Total Amount, but it seems to be a generated document by the complainant. During the arguments the complainant was asked to bring in original Ex.C1 that has been produced by him. A perusal of this document shows that all the documents are sheet I and page I but there is no continuation. Moreover the front and back page are also altogether different which shows that the same are attached to these sheets to make it a complete document which is again forged one and it has not authenticity in the eyes of law. The amount of Rs.50,380/- has already been refunded to the complainant. No evidence has been placed on file by the complainant that the opposite parties have ever promised him to pay the amount of Rs.86,400/- after the completion of 3 years. Thus the complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegations hence this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
24-01-2013
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
