Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/304/2015

Purushottam Ram Singhania - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Companty Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Tajender K Joshi Adv.

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	304 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	8.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	9.6.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1. Purushottam Ram Singhania 3029, 2^nd floor, Ajanta Enclave (The Ajanta Co-op. house Bldg. Society (1^st ) Ltd. Sector 51D, Chandigarh 160047.
2. Rupshikha Singhania 3029, 2^nd floor, Ajanta Enclave (The Ajanta Co-op. house Bldg. Society (1^st ) Ltd. Sector 51D, Chandigarh 160047.

                …..Complainants

Versus

 

1.  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawarda, Pune 400 006 (through its Managing Director and CEO/authorized officer)
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 215-217, 4^th floor Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160 034 (through its Branch Manager)

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

                   MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant No.1in person and on behalf                           of complainant No.2 also.  

 

For OPs                 :     Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants got allured with the rosy pictures presented by the Opposite Parties regarding good return of their insurance policies @20% annualized growth, purchased two policies one in the name of complainant No.1 and another in the name of complainant No.2 for the sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- in each policy.  It is pleaded that the complainant after paying three annual premiums of Rs.50,000/- each in both the policies stopped depositing further premiums due to non transparency and decided to continue both the policies for five years to get the growth @ 20% annualized as promised by the official of Opposite Party No.1. After expiry of five years, the complainants surrendered both the policies to Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 on 1.7.2013 and acknowledgement for the same was issued showing provisional fund value of Rs.1,38,356.42 for policy No.0099719731 (in the name of complainant No.1) and Rs.1,48,412.42 for policy No.0099722561 (in the name of complainant No.2). The complainants shocked to see the fund value, which was nowhere matching with the growth assured by Opposite Party No.2 at the time of taking policy. The amount received was even less than the principal amount invested. Thus the assurance of annualized growth @20% promised at the time of selling policies was clearly false, amounting to deficiency in rendering the service.  It is alleged that despite taking up the matter with the Opposite Parties  through various communications nothing was done by the Opposite Parties to redress the grievance of the complainant. Ultimately the complainants sent legal notice Annexure C-8 to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

2.     The Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the policies in question were issued strictly in accordance with the proposals made by the individual proposers based on the premium payment terms, benefit terms and sum assured opted by them under each proposal and the complainants have not alleged that the policies were not issued as per their mandates in the respective proposal forms.   It is averred that the Opposite Parties never made any promise of return of 20% annualized growth on investment after 3-5 years and no such promise is part of the express terms and conditions of the policies in question and no such promise can be made under the unit linked policies where the investment is subject to market and other risks.  It is further averred that the complainants themselves proposed for the regular premium unit linked “Century Plus” policies after duly understanding the feature, benefits, charges and terms and conditions thereof and submitted proposal form duly signed. If the complainants were not satisfied with the policies in question they could have avail the option of free look period of 15 days for cancellation of the policies but they did not do so and continued with policy for 5 years meaning thereby they were satisfied with the policies.   Thereafter the  complainants on 1.7.2013 requested for surrender value which were  expeditiously processed by the OPs and the surrender values under both the policies were calculated in accordance with terms and conditions of the polices in question, which were credited to the respective accounts of the complainants.  It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the  complainants have  already received full and final payment of the permissible surrender value under the policies in question in accordance with terms and conditions of the policies and the complainants did not raise the issue for 2 years from the date of payment of the surrender value. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard complainant No.1 in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The matter is settled to the extent that the complainants opted two policies of the OPs i.e. policy No.99719731 in the name of complainant No.1 and policy No.99722561 in name of complainant NO.2 respectively for the sum  assured Rs.2,50,000/- in each policy. It is also admitted that the complainant paid only three annualized premiums in both the policies and after expiry of 5 years the complainants surrendered both the policies to the OPs. In response to that Opposite Parties refunded to complainant No.1 Rs.1,39,604 vide cheque dated 4.7.2013 and Rs.1,49,750/- to complainant No.2, which was credited in her account on 8.7.2013. The complainants have filed the present complaint with the grouse that they were assured by the Opposite Parties 20% annualize growth in the abovesaid investment. It is disputed that  the OPs failed to fulfill their promise and even did not refund the full principle amount invested by the complainants, which amounts deficiency on their part.
7.           The Opposite Parties on the other hand contested that  the complainants after thorough examination opted for the policies in question and if they were not satisfied with the policies they could have availed the option of free look period within 15 days to cancel the policies but they did not do so and continued to pay premium till three years and subsequently applied for surrender of the policies after lapse of five years and the OPs accordingly as per terms and conditions of the policies refunded the surrender value of the policies.  It has been denied that any assurance regarding 20% annualize growth in the investment was given by the OPs. The Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8.     We have gone through the record carefully and did not find any document on record which could elucidate the fact that the Opposite Parties assured the complainants regarding 20% annualize growth in the investment made by them with the OPs in the shape of the policies in question.  It is not the case of the complainants that they have not received any surrender value under the policies in question. As such even though they have not continued with the policies, the notification of July 2010 issued by the Apex Body of the OPs i.e.IRDA which is applicable to discontinued policies is also not applicable in the instant case as the complainants have received their surrender value after the stipulated lock-in period of 5 years.  As far as the allegation of the complainants that they have received less surrender value is concerned, it is evident from the record that the policies were unit linked policies which are market based policies meaning thereby the value of the investment depends upon the market conditions. The complainants failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the surrender value assessed by the OPs in both the policies is less. Merely alleging that the Opposite Parties did not even pay the principal amount to the complainants is not suffice to establish the claim of the complainants. They also failed to establish the alleged assurance of 20% growth by the OPs in the policies availed by the complainants.  Thus we find no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9.     For the reasons recorded above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

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

Announced

9.6.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER