Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/664/2012

Netar Parkash S/o Madan lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.664 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 20.06.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 03.01.2017

Nater Parkash aged about 45 years son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of House No. 506, Model Colony, Ward No.2, Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bazaz Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office GE Plaza, Ground Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, 411006.
2. Bazaz Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at 1^st Floor Ganpati Building, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs.  

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Nater Parkash has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 0051652831 product code 75 from the respondent No.2 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) which was commenced w.e.f. 16.05.2007 and paid Rs. 30,000/- as a single premium to the Op No.2. At the time of purchasing the policy in question the agent of the OPs assured the complainant that after three (3) years, if the complainant wish to withdraw the said policy, the OPs Insurance Company will make the full and final payment as per norm of RBI. However, all the above terms and conditions turned out to be false, as the complainant made the annual payment of premium regularly and thereafter, the complainant has been continuously making requests to the OPs Insurance company to make the payment of said policy but all in vain. When all the efforts of the complainant to get back his hard earned money failed, he got issued a legal notice on dated 12.05.2012 calling upon the OPs to make the payment of the whole amount covered under the said policy alongwith appropriate damages within a period of 15 days but the OPs Insurance Company has not complied with the said legal notice. Since then, the complainant is running from pillar to post by visiting the office of Op No.1. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs Insurance Company to make the payment of whole amount covered under the policy alongwith interest and damages and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is hopelessly time barred as per section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The policy in question was issued in the year May 2007 strictly in accordance with the proposal dated 15.05.2007 signed and submitted by the complainant himself and original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was sent to the complainant which was duly received by the complainant. After receipt of the policy bond, the complainant never complained of having not received the policy documents and being fully satisfied with the said policy never raised any objection or protest w.e.t. the express terms and conditions of the policy for more than 5 years of issue of the policy in question; the complainant himself was licensed as agent by the IRDA to act as an insurance consultant and sourced life insurance policies for the OPs under IC Code 1001004727. Thus, it cannot be believed that the complainant who sourced and explained terms and conditions of the policy to his other clients, was not aware of the terms of the contract under his instant policy. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed; the complainant himself failed to discharge his contractual obligation under the policy and failed to pay the yearly regular premium due on 16.05.2008 and onward as stipulated in the schedule of the policy bond; the policy in question as such lapsed w.e.f. 16.05.2008 but the complainant did not get his policy revived even within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium which expired on 15.05.2010. Thus, the contract of insurance stands terminated and nothing is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. The OP Insurance Company have acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy in question and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance; complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct as he being a prudent person himself out of his free will, after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks and terms and conditions of Unit Link Regular Premium “ Capital Unit Gain” plan proposed for the said unit link policy vide proposal dated 15.05.2007 and opted to pay regular yearly premium of Rs. 30,000/- for premium paying term of 20 years. The proposal was accepted and policy bearing No. 0051652831 was issued to him with the date of commencement as 16.05.2007. The complainant has challenged the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance duly approved by the IRDA which requires a full scale trial in recording the detailed evidence, so this Forum has no jurisdiction and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4                      In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of Registered AD Legal Notice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of schedule of policy as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of receipt of premium as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shiv Prasad Singh, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 20.10.2015 alongwith insurance policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of statement of account as on 18.01.2016 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.    

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy called Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain bearing No. 0051652831 product No. 75 on 16.05.2007 and paid Rs. 30,000/- to the OP No.2. The only version of the complainant is that, it was assured on behalf of the OPs Insurance Company that after three years, if the complainant wish to withdraw the said policy, the OPs Insurance Company will make the full and final payment as per norms of the RBI but all the assurance given by the official of the OPs turned out to be false and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- invested by the complainant in the policy in question alongwith all the benefits.

8                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 20 years but the complainant paid only one (1) installment of Rs. 30,000/- on 15.05.2007 and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and policy in question lapsed w.e.f. 16.05.2008. Even after that complainant did not get his policy revived within a permissible revival period of two (2) years from the date of fisrt unpaid premium which expired on 15.05.2010. Thus, the contract of the insurance policy stands terminated and nothing is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company further argued that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as per provision of section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as the policy in question was issued in the year May, 2007 but the present complaint has been filed on 20.06.2012 after a period of 5 years, even the present complaint has been filed after a period of 4 years i.e. in the month of June, 2012 after the lapse of policy on 16.05.2008. Further, learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company argued that the complainant has invested his money in Unit Link Policy called Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed.

             Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as from the perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is duly evident that the insurance policy was taken in the month of May, 2007 which was lapsed in the month of May, 2008 and the present complaint has been filed on 20.06.2012 after a period of 4 years after the lapse of policy in question and as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint can be filed before the Forum within a period of 2 years, which is reproduced here as under:

24-A. Limitation period.

                         (i) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

                        (ii)        Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

                        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

10.                   Further, from the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R-2 bearing No. 0051652831 dated 16.05.2007 it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money in unit link policy called as “Capital Unit Gain” to earn the profit/gain and it is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

11.                   Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. The same view has been held in case titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above, the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the Ops had played unfair trade practice with him or there is any deficiency in service on their part. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievances, (if so advised) and further the complainant can approach to OPs Insurance Company to proceed the Insurance Policy as per its terms and conditions. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 03.01.2017

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.