Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/226/2019

R.P. Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shiv Krishan Sehgal Adv.

04 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	226/2019
Date of Institution	:	15.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	04.03.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

R.P.Singh s/o Sh.Darshan Singh r/o 3111, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, SCO No.215-216-217, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Shiv Krishan Sehgal, Adv. for the complainant
	Sh.Varun Chawla, Adv. for the OPs.

 

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  he purchased two life insurance policies from the OP for the period of 10 years for Rs.36,000/- in the names of his son-Tegpreet Singh, dated 28.11.2010 to 27.11.2019, Policy No.0190815786 and daughter–Jasleen Kaur dated 09.12.2010 to 08.12.2019 (Policy No.0190775297) for basic sum assured of Rs.1,67,000/-.  At the time of purchasing the policies, both the children were minors so the policyholder was the complainant himself only.  It has further been averred that he asked the OP that whether he could pay the premium of both the insurance policies through onetime payment so that he don’t have any worry for paying premiums and at that time just to sell the insurance policies, the OP agreed and by mis-representation, they made him to purchase the same. When he received final papers of the policies, it was written that regular premium was to be paid for 10 years to which he objected by stating that it has already been discussed that he will pay the premium in onetime payment only so why the OP had added the line then the OP told him that it was a printing mistake, they will being new papers by tomorrow by correcting the terms and conditions and on the next day, the OP showed him the new documents of the policy in which the key features of the Bajaj Allianz Invest Gain were written at point No.5 as “for your convenience, you don’t have to pay the premiums for the full term of the policy. We provide you with a range of limited premium payments terms for you to finish obligations as fast as possible and enjoy the benefits of life cover without any worry thereafter”. It has further been averred that when the policies in question started, the OP told him to pay the regular premium then he told to the OP that it has already been decided that he will pay the premium in one time then there was no question of paying the regular premium but they told him that the policies in question are regular premium policies and he has to pay the regular premium.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the policies in question were issued   strictly in accordance with the proposals made by the complainant based on the premium payment term, benefit term and sum assured opted by him under each proposal and he has not alleged that the same were not issued as per his mandates in respective proposal forms.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the Tegpreet Singh and Jasleen Kaur who have attained majority and are competent to sue or be sued as per law.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant after fully understanding the features, benefits, risks and terms and conditions of the regular premium “Invest Gain Economy” plan himself out of his free will proposed the policy vide proposal forms.  It was denied that the complainant proposed for a single premium policies.  It has further been pleaded that he himself opted to pay yearly regular premium @ Rs.18104/- and Rs.18047/- under the policies in question for a period of  years.  It has further been pleaded that he date of commencement of the polices in question were 08.12.2010 and 27.11.2010 respectively and policies were received by the complainant. However, he failed to pay regular premium due on 08.12.2011 and 27.11.2011 and onwards hence the policies  became lapsed without acquiring any surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, he had the option to get the policy received with the permissible revival period of 5 years from the date of first unpaid premium but no efforts were made by him and as such nothing is payable under the policies in question. 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 OP controverting its 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, including the written arguments of the OP.
5.         After giving our thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The stand of the complainant is that the policies in question were not issued as per the assurances made by the OP.  However, we are not convinced with this submission of the Counsel for the complainant because the policies in question were issued as per the information and particulars filled in the proposal forms duly signed by him. The perusal of the proposal forms produced on record by the OP shows that the complainant himself opted to pay yearly regular premiums and as such the question of payment of single premium does not arise as alleged. After the issuance of the policies in question, the complainant never approached the OP within a reasonable period to discontinue the same and sought refund of the premiums paid as per the terms and conditions thereof meaning thereby that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the same and terms and conditions thereof are deemed to be admitted on his part.  Moreover, he had filed the present complaint after more than 8 years of the issuance of the policies in question.

 

6.         Moreover, from the documentary evidence on file, it is apparent that the complainant had failed to pay the regular premium due on 08.12.2011 and 27.11.2011 and onwards and, therefore, the policies in question lapsed without acquiring any surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Besides this, he had option to get the policies in question revived within the permissible revival period of five years from the date of first unpaid premium as per the terms and conditions of the policies but no such effort was made by him. In the present case, the complainant had neither got the policies in question reinstated by paying the due premiums nor he had surrendered the same to the OP.  Thus, the complainant has failed to make any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 04/03/2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER