BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.185 of 2015

Date of Instt. 04.05.2015

Date of Decision:29.11.2017

Rajwinder Kaur aged about 38 years W/o Mr. Kuldip Kumar, resident of H.No.B-I/721, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar City, Punjab Mob. No.92167-67503.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.271, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula (Haryana)-134115,

2. Shambu Khela S/o Gurmej Singh resident of H.No.264, Street No.6, Central Town, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. TK Badhan, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. SC Sood, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that she got the life insurance policy from OP No.1 through OP No.2, who is agent of OP No.1. All the required documents filled at Jalandhar by the OP No.2 in the name of Mr. Bhavish Paul son of Sh. Kuldip Kumar, however, complainant Rajwinder Kaur was stood as policy holder and her son was assured by the OP. The said policy No.0160274894 and the same has been issued on 26.03.2010. The complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- by handing over a demand draft towards the OP No.1. The OP No.2 told the complainant at the time of taking the life insurance policy that the policy is having only single premium and nothing was to be paid against the said policy. It is also pertinent to mention here that one another life insurance policy bearing No.159528078 dated 16.03.2010 has also been issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant but in the year 2013, the OP No.1 returned the surrender value of the said policy to the complainant inspite of making the sum assured of the said policy. The complainant had moved some applications to the OP No.1 in March, 2013 in order to change the mode of policy into single premium policy, but the OP No.1 never replied of the said applications. Now five years are going to elapse from the date of issuance of the policy bearing No.0160274894, but the OP No.1 did not make any reply to the complainant regarding the maturity of the said policy.

2. That the complainant variously approached to the OPs, but OPs kept mum on the demand of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs has committed fraud with the complainant and not issued the policy on the demand of the complainant. The complainant suffered loss, agony and tension, which was caused by the OP No.1, by issuing the policy with the capricious act done by the OPs. The complainant served a legal notice on 11.03.2015 to the OP No.1 and the same was not replied by the OP No.1. The complainant is sufferer and bonafide policy holder and there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to return the amount as per the scheme of the policy and OPs are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.2 filed reply and almost admitted the version of the complainant by stating that the complainant has taken the policy for one time premium and even the complainant has moved an application to change the mode of policy in respect of policy No.0160274894, but the OP No.1 has not changed the mode of said policy and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be disposed of accordingly. OP No.1 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering OP as the contract under the policy bearing No.0159528078 stands already terminated due to non-payment of regular premiums due on 16.03.2011 and onwards, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs.33,149/- was paid to the complainant, vide Cheque No.438398 dated 19.03.2013, which was encashed by the complainant on 24.04.2013. Further, the policy No.0160274894 on the life of Master Bhavish Paul is lying lapsed due to non-payment of regular premiums due on 25.03.2011 and onwards and the complainant failed to get the policy revived even within the permissible revival period of 2 years, which stands expired on 25.03.2013 thus, neither any claim has been fallen due nor does the said policies have acquired any paid up value/surrender value as per the terms of the insurance contract. Thus, the complaint is without any legal cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and further alleged that the complainant has purchased the Unit Linked Policy with an intent to earn profit and the transactions made by her can be construed as speculative investment matter, which is commercial in nature and does not fall within the purview of 'The Consumer Protection Act', 1986 and further submitted that the complainant has leveled allegations of fraud, cheating and misrepresentation, which cannot be tried in the summary trial before this Forum under the provisions of 'The Consumer Protection Act', 1986. The allegations leveled in the instant complaint do not fall within the ambit of the 'Consumer Protection Act', 1986 and further alleged that any agent/person is not allowed to make any commitment beyond the terms and conditions of the policy as approved by the IRDA. Thus, the OP No.1 is not liable or responsible for un-authorized act and omission on the part of the person/agent and further submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as the complainant was given 15 days 'Free Look Cancellation Period' from the date of receipt of the policy bonds to review the terms and conditions of the contract as per the 'Policy Holders Protection Regulation', 2002 and the said Free Look Option was mentioned in the proposal form signed by the complainant as a statutory provision apart from policy document in possession of the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then she would have given written notice to OP to cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bonds, but the complainant being fully satisfied with the proposed plan and the terms and conditions of the policy bonds never approached the OP No.1 to cancel the policy within 15 days 'Free Look Cancellation Period' or any time thereafter and did not return the policy bonds seeking refund of premium permissible as per terms of the meaning thereby that she was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The mere silence on the part of the complainant for more than 5 ½ years amounts to her satisfaction by acquiescence. The complainant never raised any objection for more than 5 ½ years and enjoyed the benefits, without raising any dispute. On merits, the purchase of the policy by the complainant is admitted but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant herself tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 Insurance Policy, Ex.C2 Copy of Draft, Ex.C3 Receipt of Second Policy, Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 Copies of Application, Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 Copies of Conversation, Ex.C8 Copy of Legal Notice and Ex.C9 Postal Receipt and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP37 and closed the evidence, whereas OP No.2 during the pendency of the complaint and when case was fixed for evidence, OP No.2 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After going through the contents of the complaint, it reveals that the complainant alleged that he took two policies from the OP No.1 through OP No.2 being agent of the OP No.1. First policy bearing No.159528078 dated 16.03.2010 was taken by the complainant in her name, but in the said policy, the OP No.1 returned the surrender value of the said policy to the complainant inspite of making the sum assured of the said policy and it is alleged by the OP that the said surrender value of Rs.33,149/- was paid to the complainant, vide cheque No.438398 dated 19.03.2013, which was got encashed by the complainant on 24.04.2013, so, when the complainant had already encashed one cheque for return of the surrender value of the one policy, without any protest and as such, it seems that the complainant has surrendered the claim of the said policy, nor the complainant has specifically asked for any relief in regard to policy bearing No.159528078. Now, there remains insurance policy No.0160274894 stood in the name of Mr. Bhavish Paul son of Sh. Kuldip Kumar, who is none else rather he is a son of the complainant and in the said policy, premium was admittedly deposited by the complainant as alleged by the complainant in her affidavit Ex.CA and some policy document Ex.C-1 and demand draft Ex.C-2 and payment reference Ex.C-3 have been placed on the file, but the allegation of the complainant that an insurance was given to the complainant at the time of inception of the insurance policy in question that there will be only one premium is to be paid, but after elapse of 5 years, the OP No.1 did not make any reply in regard to maturity of the said policy bearing No.0160274894 and even the complainant also alleged in para No.2 of the complaint that he made application in the year 2013 for change of the mode of policy into single premium policy regarding that the complainant has brought on the file two applications Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, these are admittedly sent by the complainant in the month of March, 2013, but here we do not agree with the contention of the complainant that after elapse of 3 years, how she can be allowed to change the mode of policy into single premium policy rather as per settled principle, if the policy is not suited to the insured person, then he is at liberty to surrender the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, but in this case, the complainant has approached for change of mode of payment by way of one premium, after elapse of 3 years, which is not permissible under the Law.

8. Apart from above, the complainant alleged that she was told at the time of taking the insurance policy that policy is having only single premium and nothing was to be paid against the said policy, but this factum is to be co-related with the documentary evidence, admittedly, the complainant filled a proposal form and other documents and also got an insurance policy, regarding that some documents placed on the file by the OP i.e. Ex.OP1, which described that policy requires regular premium to be paid for 25 years, similar wording has been mentioned in document Ex.OP2 and further copy of policy schedule Ex.OP3 also shows that the term of the policy is 25 years and premium is to be paid annually of Rs.50,000/- and due date for last premium is 25.03.2034 and further an other document produced on the file by the OP i.e. Ex.OP4, which also shows that the policy in question is required regular premium and even the first premium receipt Ex.OP5 also shows that the policy will expire on 25.03.2035, means it is for 25 years, even the proposal form containing four pages Ex.OP21 signed by the complainant Rajwinder Kaur, wherein under the heading of “Coverage Information” the premium frequency is shown 'yearly'. So, from the all documents, it is clearly established that the complainant was well aware about the payment of yearly premium of the policy, but when she failed to deposit the premium on year to year and ultimately, policy of the complainant was lapsed and after consuming more than 5 years, the complainant did not bother to approach to the OP No.1 for reviving of the policy stand in the name of her son and it is clearly established that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 rather the complainant herself in default for not depositing the premium timely and as such, we do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

29.11.2017 Member President