Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/415/2014

Sh. Jagjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anuradha Gupta, Adv.

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	415 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	12.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	05.04.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Sh.Jagjeet Singh s/o Sh.Babu Singh, aged 59 years, R/o H.No.5, Village Mullanpur Sodhian, P.O. Kurali, Distt. Mohali.

 

2]  Smt.Jaswinder Kaur w/o Sh.Jagjeet Singh s/o Sh.Babu Singh, Aged 59 years, r/o H.No.5, Village Mullanpur Sodhian, P.O. Kurali, Distt. Mohali.

 

3]  Sh.Bhavneet Singh s/o Sh.Jagjeet Singh s/o Sh.Babu Singh, aged 59 years, R/o H.No.5, Village Mullanpur Sodhian, P.O. Kurali, Distt. Mohali.  

 

             …..Complainants

Versus

 

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co., SCO No.45, Pocket-1, Manimajra NAC, Chandigarh through its Senior Manager.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Ms.Anuradha Gupta, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants, being allured by the representatives of the Opposite Party, got six insurance policies of Opposite Party Company, out of which two policies bearing No.291709810 amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Policy No.294141513 amounting to Rs.One Lakh, have not been received by the complainants till date.  It is averred that the complainants visited the Opposite Party and came to know that the wrong address of the complainants in said two policies have been mentioned. Thereafter, the complainants lodged complaint with IRDA as well as Opposite Party Company, but nothing was done.  It is averred that as per IRDA regulations, it is mandatory for insurance companies to take income and address proof of the insured persons. 

         It is pleaded that even the other four polices bearing No.0289221023, 02951809908, 0291631522 and 0286722427, were opted by the complainant as single premium policies for one year, but the same were also issued for 10-20 years and the complainants cannot pay such huge premium against all policies for such long period.  It is also pleaded that the complainant made a request to cancel all the policies and refund the amount thereof, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and admitted the issuance of six policies in question in favour of the complainant on receipt of premium against them.  It is stated that the complainants out of their own free will proposed the policies in question and as such the same were issued to them.  It is also stated that the question of payment of single premium payment does not arise as the complainants themselves opted to pay yearly regular premiums clearly stipulated in the Schedule of the policy document as well as in the proposal form which was never disputed by them for more than one year which clearly indicates that they were fully satisfied with the premium payment term opted by them.  It is submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story just to illegally withdraw the premium deposited by them.  It is also submitted that the policies in question as such lapsed and the complainant can get the policy revived within the revival period of 5 years from the date of first unpaid premium. It is pleaded that the policy No.291709810 and 294141513 were issued in the month of Jan., 2013, but the first complaint regarding the non-receipt of the said policies were received only after Jan., 2014, which indicates that the said person of Max Life Insurance Company is tutoring the complainant for some ulterior motives since working in a competitor private life insurance company.  Pleading no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well as denying other allegation, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by complainant No.1 thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply.  

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments.

 

6]       The complainants have preferred the present complaint against the OP on the score that they had subscribed for six different policies of which four policies bearing No.0295180908, 0289221023, 0291631522, 0286722427, amounting to Rs.80,000, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively, which were received at the complainants end and a request for their surrender was made on 03.01.2014 vide Ann.c-5.  The OP in reply to this request, acknowledged that the issue with regard to policy No.2951180908, was under resolve with the grievance team of the OP and the complainant would be intimated within 10 working days, however, the complainants claims that they did not receive any favourable reply from the side of the OP. The complainants thereafter also raised the matter with regard to the non-receipt of two policy documents bearing No.291709810 and 294141513, amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.One Lakh respectively, subscribed by the complainants.  The said letter is duly accepted by the office of the Opposite Party and no action was forthcoming from the side of the OP. Thus giving rise to a cause of action in favour of the complainant, demanding the cancellation of the policies and refund of the premium amount to them.

        

7]       The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the complainants have placed on record the details of all the six policies issued to the complainants and explaining the status of these policies as the complainant did not pay any further premiums after the initial first installment in each of these policies.  The OP has also mentioned the respective date of dispatch of all other policies except for the policy No.291709810. The OP has also placed on record the Speed Post track details of policy bearing No.294141513, as per Ann.R-16.  The Opposite Party has claimed that the complainants request for the cancellation of the policies, mentioned above, was received at the office of the OP beyond the free look period of 15 days, therefore, the said policies could not be cancelled on this score. However, the complainant could claim the surrender value of each such policies after the payment of respective premiums, as applicable and also that the said policies were lying in the lapsed mode with an opportunity to the complainants to even revive the same as per the terms & conditions of the policies, applicable to each of them. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that the six different policies, mentioned above, were issued by the OP on the basis of the proposal forms, received at its end, along with the payment of respective premiums. The complainants having themselves admitted the receipt of four different policies vide Ann.C-5 and seeking the cancellation of these policies, have requested the same beyond the free look period of 15 days.  Therefore, the act of the OP in not cancelling these four policies, as mentioned in Ann.C-5, does not amount to deficiency in service on its part.  However, the subsequent request with regard to two other policies bearing No.294141513 and 291709810, against which the complainant had paid Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.30,000/- respectively.  It is evident from the details, placed on record by the OP that the policy bearing No.294141513, a premium of an amount of Rs.101553.96/- (Ann.R-17) was deducted and the remaining amount of Rs.98446.04 was returned via direct credit entry in the account of the complainants maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce on 20.4.2013.  As the Opposite Party has placed on record, the dispatch details of this policy via Speed Post, the claim of the complainants about its non-receipt at their end, could only be believed in the presence of a cogent evidence rebutting the claim of the OP about its delivery on 20.5.2013.  Therefore, the claim of the complainants about non-delivery of the policy document bearing No.0294141513, cannot be believed. The complainants have also not disclosed about the receipt of Rs.98446.04 being the refund of excess amount from the side of the OP.

 

9]       The only issue that remains to be dealt with is with regard to the policy document bearing No.291709810 against which a premium of Rs.30,000/- was received by the OP while issuing the same on 13.1.2013.  Though the Opposite Party has claimed that this policy was lying in Lapsed Mode, but no details of its dispatch & its receipt at the complainants end, have been disclosed by the OP.  Therefore, in the absence of any such disclosure about the receipt of the policy at the complainants end, the claim of the complainants about the non-receipt of this policy, prevails.  In the given situation, the complainants right to surrender the policy within the free look period from the date of its receipt, has not begin.  Therefore, we feel that the claim of the complainants about the surrender of the policy bearing No.291709810, deserves to be entertained by the OP as it has failed to prove its delivery to the complainants and refund the premium collected against it, with nominal deduction as per free look cancellation. 

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is partly allowed qua Opposite Party. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund the premium amount of Rs.30,000/- in respect of policy No291709810, after making necessary deduction, as applicable against free look cancellation, along with interest @9% per annum from 13.2.2013 i.e. after one month of commencement of the policy, till it is paid.

 

[b]      To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

        

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum, on the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-, which came after making necessary deductions as applicable against free look cancellation, from 13.2.2013 i.e. after one month of commencement of the policy till it is paid, and also on the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

05^th April, 2016                                                             Sd/-

                                                                       

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER