STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.                 Bhartendu Sood S/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Nath, H.No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh 160047.

2.                 Saubhagya Prada Sood d/o Bhartendu Sood, H.No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh 160047.

……Appellants/Complainants

V E R S U S

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.215-217, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022.

              ....Respondent/OP

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Appellant No.1 in person as also on behalf of appellant No.2.

                        Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv. for the respondent

                                                ---

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants and directed the Opposite Party/respondent as under:

“So, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to allow this complaint in favour of the complainant with a direction to the OP to pay the fund value of the policies in questions to the complainants immediately as per value of their investment, taking the NAV rate for today 21.3.2011.  This amount be refunded to the complainants along with documentary proof i.e. newspaper cutting to show the NAV value of their units/investments as on 21.3.2011.  However, the complainants will submit to the OP all the relevant documents necessary for getting the fund value from the OP. 

The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of documents from the complainant, failing which they shall pay the total amount of fund value of both the complainants along with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payments to the complainant”.

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.1 and his daughter obtained two Unit Linked Life Insurance Policies namely ‘Capital Unit Gain’ from the Opposite Party, for an assured sum of Rs.2.50 lacs each for which a premium of Rs.25,000/- each, was paid by them annually from April, 2007 upto 2009 i.e. for three years. On 28.12.2008, the statement of account received from the Opposite Party  in respect of the said policies showed the fund value at Rs.26,131/- against the investment of Rs.50,000/- each.  In Oct., 2009, the statement showed the Fund Value as Rs.10,683/- for Bhartendu Sood, complainant No.1 and Rs.14,633/- for Saubhagya Prada Sood, complainant No.2.  It was stated that after depositing the 3^rd premium of both the policies amounting to Rs.25,000/- each on 14.10.2009, the complainant got a statement on 20.10.2009, showing the fund value of Rs.72,030/- for Bhartendu Sood and Rs.84,403/- for Saubhagya Prada Sood.  However, on 5.11.2009 when complainant No.1 visited the office of the Opposite Party, he got a statement showing fund value at Rs.67,312/- for him and Rs.82,578/- for Saubhagya Prada Sood respectively. However, the subsequent statements showed fall in the investment of the complainants. It was further stated that on 5.3.2010, the complainants gave separate notices to the Opposite Party,  to explain the fall in the fund value after Oct., 2009, but the Company did not reply. In a subsequent routine letter received, from the Opposite Party, the fund value was shown as Rs.44,976/- for Bhartendu Sood and Rs.48,156/- for Saubhagya Prada Sood on 11.3.2010.  It was further stated that even though the market fluctuation always seemed to show an upward trend, their fund value was only decreasing.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party  amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                           The Opposite Party,  initially put in appearance through Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate. However, subsequently none appeared on its behalf. Therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

4.                           After hearing complainant No.1 in person and on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

5.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

6.                          We have heard appellant No.1, and Counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case including the written arguments submitted by the respondent, carefully. 

7.                          It is an admitted case of the parties that the appellants-complainants purchased two Capital Unit Gain policies, which are market linked policies, and the fund value of the units allocated, under these policies, kept on fluctuating upwards and downwards  with the change of NAV (Net Asset Value of the Securities) under which the amounts were invested. Now the question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the fund value of the Capital Unit Gain Insurance Policies of the appellants calculated by the respondent is as per the NAV. From the chart prepared by the appellants on the basis of the statements of account i.e. Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain Account (Annexure A to Annexure 12) provided to them, on various dates, by the respondent, it is evident that both the appellants purchased the said policies, on the same day i.e. 25.4.2007 for a yearly premium of Rs.25,000/- each for 15 years and the BSE index on 25.4.2007 was Rs.16,500/-. According to this chart on 4.1.2010, the investment value of both the appellants was Rs.75,000/-, whereas, the market value of appellant No.1 was shown as Rs.54366/- (Annexure-8) and that of appellant No.2 was Rs.86,988/- (Annexure-9)  though sensex was almost at the same level from 20.10.2009 to 04.01.2010, i.e. between 16300-17400.  However, during this period, the fund value of appellant No.1 fell from Rs.72,030/- to Rs.54,366/- and the fund value of appellant no.2 increased from Rs.84,403 to Rs.86,988/-  without any rationale. A specific query was put, at the time of arguments, to the Counsel for the respondent as to how the respondent calculated the fund value of the appellants, as per the NAV, but he failed to answer the same satisfactorily. Even no documentary evidence, was produced, in rebuttal, to the said chart dated 31.08.2011. In the absence of production of any documentary evidence in rebuttal by the respondent, it appears that the calculation chart submitted by the appellants is correct. As per this document, there was decrease, in the market value of the units of appellant No.1, and, on the other hand increase in the market value of the units of appellant No.2, whereas, the NAV, the amount of investment, the date of investment and the policies in which the investment was made by the appellants were the same.  In the absence of any plausible explanation, it defies one’s imagination, as to how such irrational market value was worked out. Under these circumstances, we do not hesitate in concluding that the respondent is deficient in rendering service to the appellants and also indulged into unfair trade practice. Moreover, keeping in view of the principles of natural justice, it will be appropriate, if the amount deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them, alongwith interest, irrespective of the fact that, the appellants have purchased the market linked policies. However, this aspect of the case has not been considered by the District Forum while allowing the complaint. Therefore, we do not concur with the findings of the District Forum, and hence the same are liable to be set aside.

8.                          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted with costs and the order of the District Forum is modified in the following manner:-

i)                   The respondent/Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellants/complainants, alongwith the saving bank interest rate, prevalent at the time of refund, from the respective dates of its deposit till realization, instead of payment of fund value on the basis of NAV, as directed by the District Forum.  

ii)                 The respondent/Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the appellants, as compensation, for mental agony and harassment .

iii)               The respondent/Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellants/complainants.

iv)               The appellants shall, however, submit a copy of the requisite documents to the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

v)                 The aforesaid order be complied with, by the respondent/Opposite Party, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which it shall be liable to pay the aforesaid payable amounts, with penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

9.                 Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Announced.

13.03.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER