Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/817/2014

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Daman Dhir

04 May 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/817/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10/12/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	04/05/2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]   Jaswinder Singh son of Dalbara Singh;

2]   Rajwant Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh;

     Both residents of House No.75-A, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1]   Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, West Hub, 2^nd Floor, Bajaj Finserv Survey, 208/1-b, Behind Weikfield IT Building, Viman Nagar, Nagar Road, Pune, through its Managing Director.

 

2]   Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, West Hub, 2^nd Floor, Bajaj Finserv Survey, 208/1-b, Behind Weikfield IT Building, Viman Nagar, Nagar Road, Pune, through its Chief Executive Officer.

 

3]   Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 215-217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Daman Dhir, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, allured by the rosy pictures painted by the representatives of the Opposite Parties about high merits about their policies/plan, the Complainants, invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and after processing of the documents, 03 insurance policies bearing Nos.0301124744, 0300313186 and 0301782586 were issued in the name of Complainants (). On receipt of the aforesaid policies, the Complainants were astonished to observe that wrong family details were filled therein and there were mis-match in the occupation details with different figures of annual income. Observing such blunders in the policies, the Complainant, on the advice of the officials of the Opposite Parties, submitted the original policy bonds for carrying out the necessary corrections. However, regular visits of the Complainants had gone down the drain as on every visit the officials of the Opposite Parties used to make one excuse or the other. Eventually, after retaining the Policies with them for around 6 months, in the last week of Nov. 2013 the Complainant No.1 was handed over the Policies without there being any changes/corrections made with a direction to take up the matter with the Head Office directly. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants served a legal notice dated 3.3.2014 upon the Opposite Parties for the refund of their hard earned money, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainants thus constrained to file the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the Complainants out of their free will proposed for the policies in question vide proposal forms dated 22.5.2013, 30.4.2013 and 6.6.2013 for Regular Premium “Cash Gain Economy” Plan after fully understanding the terms and conditions, benefits & features thereof. It has been pleaded that after processing and acceptance of the proposals, the Complainants were issued the subject policies, which were admittedly received by them. The Complainants failed to pay the regular premium due onwards, as a result of which the policies in question were lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the Complainant can get the policies revived within the permissible revival period of 5 years from date of first unpaid premium. Hence, nothing is payable under the policies. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainants also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainants, as well as Opposite Parties. 

 

7.     The grievance of the Complainants is that they had received the policies of the Opposite Parties with apparent errors like mis-match in the occupation details and wrong figures of annual income of the Complainants. The Opposite Parties failed to correct the discrepancies as pointed out by the Complainants inspite of protracted correspondence. Finally, when the corrections were not done by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants requested for the refund of their hard earned money. During the correspondence period for carrying out the necessary corrections, the policies in question had also lapsed. After scanning the entire evidence available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there were apparent discrepancies in the policy documents, issued to the Complainants, by the Opposite Parties, which the Opposite Parties were duty bound to correct, on being pointed out by the Complainants, however they miserably failed to do the same inspite of reasonable correspondence and personal entreaties. This clearly goes on to prove the callousness on the part of the Opposite Parties and tantamount to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.

 

8.     In view of above discussion, the complainants have produced cogent evidence to prove unfair       trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. We find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

 

[a]  Refund Rs.3,31,000/- [being the principal amount] to the Complainants, along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit, till realization;   

 

[b]  Pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para above from the date of deposit, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-. 

10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04^th May, 2016                                          Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                  Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”