STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 51 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 07.02.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.03.2013 |
Pushpa Rani wife of Bhupinder Nagpal, R/o 3233, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.
……Appellant /complainant
V e r s u s
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,
(i) SCO No. 139-140, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh
(ii) GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune – 411 006.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, husband of the appellant, in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), being pre-mature.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased ‘INVESTGAIN-GOLD’ Policy, bearing No. 0002954782 dated 28.07.2003, with payment frequency of premium as ‘annual/yearly’ and the sum assured being Rs.5,00,000/-. She agreed to obtain the said policy, as the Opposite Parties, offered compounded reversionary benefit of 3% per annum, on the basic sum assured, besides bonus and returns. In the year 2011, when the complainant realized that reversionary benefit, had not been given to her, since long, she, immediately, wrote a letter to the Opposite Parties, demanding the same, which was acknowledged by them (Opposite Parties), vide letter dated 28.06.2011 Annexure C-2. The Opposite Parties demanded a copy of the Insurance Policy, from the complainant, which was provided by her, to them. However, the Opposite Parties vide their e-mail Annexure C-3, in order to wriggle out their liability, replied saying that the font of the first page of the Insurance Policy, was slightly different, than the second page, which did not seem authentic. Finally, the complainant served a legal notice dated 01.08.2011, Annexure C-4, upon the Opposite Parties, to redress her grievance, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to stop adopting unfair trade practice, by inducing the consumers, on false assurances; pay the reversionary bonus, as agreed to, by them, at the time of taking the Insurance Policy; compensation, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, on account of delayed payment of the reversionary bonus, and causing mental agony & physical harassment, due to their act and conduct; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint amended written version, stated that the complainant, herself, opted for the ‘INVESTGAIN-GOLD’ Policy plan, with a premium paying term of 10 years, as per the proposal form, after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the said plan. It was further stated that the proposal for insurance was accepted by the complainant, and annual premium, amounting to Rs.32,524/- each, per year, was stipulated to be paid by her, for a period of 10 years. It was further stated that the complainant never raised any objection, with regard to the terms and conditions of the Policy, for more than 8 long years, as she was fully aware of the same. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the reversionary bonus was liable to be paid, by the Opposite Parties, as and when, the sum assured was payable i.e. in the event of maturity of the Insurance Policy or death etc. It was further stated that representation made by the complainant, for payment of reversionary bonus, to her, was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not satisfied, with the terms and conditions of the Policy, she could raise an objection, after the receipt of the Policy documents, and ask for cancellation of the same, within the free-look-period, but she did not do so. It was further stated that since the complainant was only entitled to be paid reversionary bonus, alongwith other benefits, in the event of maturity of the Policy, or death claim etc., she could not claim the same, earlier to the happening of any of these events. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. In the replication, filed by the complainant, she reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the joint amended written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, husband of the complainant, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above, holding that the same (complaint) was pre-mature.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, husband of the complainant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, husband of the complainant, submitted that, as per the representation made by the Agent/Advisor of the Opposite Parties, the complainant was entitled to 3% reversionary bonus, on the basic sum assured, besides other bonus and returns, every year, but she (complainant), was not paid the same. He further submitted that the District Forum, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, and law, on the point, illegally disposed of the complaint, without giving any relief, to the complainant, holding that the same (complaint) was pre-mature. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the husband of the appellant/complainant, and on going through the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant purchased ‘INVESTGAIN-GOLD’ Policy dated 28.07.2003, from the Opposite Parties, vide Annexure C-1. The dispute is only with regard to the benefit of 3% compounded reversionary bonus, per annum, on the basic sum assured, which comes to Rs.15,000/-, per year, besides other benefits. According to the complainant, she was entitled to the benefit of 3% reversionary bonus, per annum, on the basic sum assured, but she was not paid the same. Annexure C-1 is a copy of the Insurance Policy. It is evident, from this document that the Benefit Term of the Policy was 28 years. Premium Paying Term was 10 years and the Policy was issued on 07.10.2003 i.e. the date of risk. At page 7 of Annexure C-1, under the heading “Bonus”, it was mentioned as under:-
“a) Reversionary Bonus : At the end of each financial year, the Company may declare a rate of reversionary bonus expressed as a percentage. This percentage shall be applied to the sum assured plus existing declared reversionary bonuses to determine the amount of reversionary bonus to be added to the policy at the year-end. Reversionary bonus, ones (infact once) declared, shall vest in the policy and shall be payable along with and as and when the sum assured is payable.
b) xxxxxx
c) xxxxxxx”
11. From the afore-extracted relevant condition of Policy Annexure C-1, it is evident, that the Company may declare a rate of reversionary bonus, at the end of the financial year. It means that the reversionary bonus, if declared by the Company, was only to be paid to the complainant, after the maturity of the Policy, or in the event of death etc. In the instant case, the Policy has neither matured nor it came to an end. Under these circumstances, the complainant did not become entitled to the reversionary bonus, claimed by her. It was only, on account of misinterpretation of the afore-extracted condition of the Policy, that the complainant was misled to file the Consumer Complaint prematurely. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that since, the Policy had neither matured, nor it had come to an end, the complainant was not entitled to reversionary bonus, and the complaint was pre-mature. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
12. No other point, was urged, by Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, husband of the appellant/complainant,
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
Pronounced.
01.03.2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
