Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/611/2018

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar Adv.

11 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	611/2018
Date of Institution	:	05.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	11.10.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Gagandeep Singh, National Watch House, Booth No.313, Phase-5,SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.215-216, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the Complainant.
	Sh.Varun Chawla, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2 (OP No.2 already exparte).

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that as per the assurances given by the representative of the OPs, he had invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and issued policy No.00448000001 by the OPs. He was alleged to be assured that after 10 years of its maturity, he is entitled to get interest @ 12% p.a. on the invested amount or double of the same and his life was to be insured during the existence of the policy period. After 10 years, he requested OP No.1 to release the amount but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  He was informed that the maturity date is 24.03.2026 and prior to that amount cannot be released. Thereafter, he gone through the policy and came to know that the maturity date is 24.03.2027 and not 2017. It has further been averred that the agent of the OPs mislead him by giving false assurances. He requested the OPs many times and even wrote an e-mail to release the deposited amount as well as served a legal notice dated 24.09.2018 through his counsel upon the OPs but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.         In their written statement, the OPs have pleaded that the complainant after fully understanding the features, benefits, risks and terms and conditions of whole life Regular Premium “Unit Gain” Plan himself out of his own free will proposed for the policy vide proposal dated 24.03.2007. It has further been stated that the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 24.03.2007 strictly in accordance with the proposal dated 24.03.2007 and the original policy bond containing express & agreed terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was sent and the same has been received by him.  He opted for regular premium policy wherein he was required to pay annual premium @ Rs.1,00,000/- without any obligation on the OPs to issue any notice thereof but he did not pay premiums due 24.03.2008 and onwards and hence the policy in question lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the contract and he failed to get the policy revived within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium and the said revival period expired on 24.03.2010 and as such the contract of insurance stands terminated and nothing is payable.  However, the complainant in a very clever and clandestine manner has not placed on record the complete original policy bond and trying to mislead  the Hon’ble Court by quoting terms and conditions in part. It has further been stated that the complainant has not submitted any documentary evidence that any alleged commitment to pay the double amount or any other amount or interest was ever made by the Company.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as the written submissions.   
5.         After going through the documentary evidence on file, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the grounds mentioned hereinafter.  The perusal of the documents produced by the OPs especially the proposal form dated 24.03.2007 duly signed by the complainant shows that he purchased Capital Unit Gain Insurance Policy from the OPs for a period of 20 years commencing from 24.03.2007 for sum assured of Rs.10 lakhs and the annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid upto 20 years. Admittedly, he made the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the first premium vide cheque dated 24.03.2007 only and thereafter he did not deposit any further installment due on 24.03.2008 and onwards and as such the policy in question became lapsed. Further he did not take steps to get the policy in question revived within the permissible period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium and the said revival period also expired on 24.03.2010 and as such the contract of insurance stands terminated.
6.         Now the only question that survives for determination is whether he is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with OPs with interest or not.
7.         It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that since he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as premium towards the policy in question and as such he is entitled to that amount. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to one notification dated 01.07.2010 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010 and has contended that in case of discontinuance of a policy, maximum discontinuance charges for the policies having annualized premium above Rs.25,000/- where the policy is discontinued during 1^st policy year is lower of 6% (AP or FV) subject to a maximum of Rs.6,000/-. He has further contended that after deducting the amount of Rs.6,000/-, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of premium apart from interest from the OPs. He has further argued that since the amount in question has not been paid by the OPs despite repeated requests, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
8.         We have given our anxious consideration to the above arguments. It is significant to note that the disputed policy in favour of the complainant was issued on 24.03.2007 while the notification relied upon by the learned Counsel for the complainant issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulation, 2010 is dated 1.7.2010. In other words the said notification was issued after the terms and conditions of the policy were already accepted by the complainant. A perusal of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy reveal that the complainant had option to get the policy in question revived within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium but he has failed to revive the policy in question and the said revival period expired on 24.03.2010 and the contract of insurance under the policy stands terminated and nothing is payable under the policy.  The OPs have also pleaded in the preliminary objection of their written statement that at present the above policy is terminated as the complainant has failed to get the same revived within  the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium and the said revival period expired on 24.03.2010. When the policy is terminated, there cannot be any question of applicability of notification dated 01.07.2010 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010, which itself came into force on 01.07.2010.  Accordingly, now the complainant cannot seek a refund of the premium paid, for which he has already taken the benefit of coverage under the insurance policy. In Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors. IV(2008) CPJ 156 (NC) it was held that if the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of policy or law, any Fora could direct for refund of any premium.  
9.         Here reference is also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Reena Singh & Anr. passed in Revision Petition No. 2394 of 2013, decided on 07.08.2014, wherein it was held as under:-

“8.      Regulation 1(2) of this Notification runs as under:

 

“(2)    They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette and shall apply to all products of linked life insurance cleared by the Authority thereafter.

       

         Thus, it becomes clear that this Notification is applicable to the policies cleared by Authority after 1st July, 2010, whereas policies issued in favour of the complainant pertains prior to 1st July, 2010.  In such circumstances, this notification was not applicable to the lapsed polices of complainant and learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaints on the basis of Notification dated 1st July, 2010 and complainants are entitled to get paid up value as per rules applicable to the policies at the time of issuance of policies.”

 

                   We are of the view that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding upon the complainant, therefore the complainant is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as premium with interest. The complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has utterly failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek the refund of the paid up value, if any, of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy from the OPs.
11.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 11/10/2021
	Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER