BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Bhupinder Nagpal son of Late Sh.Ram Chand, R/o 3233, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.139-140, 2^nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018

2]      GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411 006

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Satish Bhatti, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for OPs

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited – OP No.1 approached the complainant to take the policy ‘INVESTGAIN GOLD’ dated 28.6.2003 - Annexure C-1 covering sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs, to which he agreed. 

                   It is the case of the complainant that he agreed to take the said policy as there was an offer of compound reversionary benefit of 3% p.a. on the basic sum assured, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per year, besides other benefits. It is the allegation of the complainant that in the year 2011, he came to know that the reversionary bonus was not being paid by OP No.1. OP also wrote a letter dated 28.6.011 – Annexure C-2 to the complainant. He was shocked to receive a letter dated 16.6.2011 from OP No.1 – Annexure   C-3, wherein, it was stated that the grievance raised by him is not inconsonance with the terms and conditions of the policy, hence they would not be able to consider it. Accordingly, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2011 – Annexure C-4 to OPs but of no consequences. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                OPs filed the joint reply. It is replied that the complainant himself opted for the plan with the premium paying term of 10 years in the proposal form – Annexure R-1 and, thereafter, the insurance policy in question was issued to him. It is denied that OP No.1 ever agreed to pay 3% p.a. reversionary bonus of the sum assured.  It is further replied that the reversionary bonus is liable to be paid, either at the time of maturity or on the death of the policy holder, per the terms & conditions of the policy.  The original policy bond is in the custody of the complainant. It is further replied that the Policy Schedule, relied upon by the complainant is a forged & fabricated document as it has a number of inconsistencies. Moreover, the reversionary bonus rate, as a percentage of the sum assured is to be declared by the Company at the end of each financial year and cannot be pre-determined.  It is submitted that though the reversionary bonuses declared from time to time under the policy is required to be added to the policy in accordance with the terms & conditions but no such bonus has fallen due, so nothing is payable to the complainant. Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant obtained ‘INVESTGAIN GOLD’ policy dated 28.6.2003 - Annexure C-1 covering sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs from the OP. It was submitted that there was an offer of compound reversionary benefit of 3% p.a. on the basic sum assured, besides other benefits. That the OP wrote a letter dated 28.6.2011– Annexure C-2 to the complainant. The OP No.1 also wrote a letter dated 16.6.2011 – Annexure C-3, wherein, it was stated that the grievance raised by him is not inconsonance with the terms and conditions of the policy, hence they would not be able to consider it.

6.                The learned Counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant himself opted for the policy with the premium paying term of 10 years in the proposal form – Annexure R-1 after understanding its terms and conditions. The learned Counsel for the Ops denied that OP No.1 ever intimated the complainant that he would get 3% p.a. reversionary bonus of the sum assured as the reversionary bonus is payable either on maturity or on death of the policy holder, per terms & conditions of the policy. 

7.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased ‘INVESTGAIN GOLD’ policy dated 28.6.2003  - Annexure C-1 of OP No.1. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the offer of compound reversionary benefit of 3% p.a. on the basic sum assured, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per year besides other benefits.

8.                According to the policy annexed with the complaint – Annexure C-1, the policy holder is entitled for granted benefits, as at page No.5 under the heading ‘Basic Benefits’ it is recorded as under :-

“Compounded Reversionary Bonus @3% per annum on Basic Sum Assured.”

At page No.7 of Annexure C-1 under the heading ‘Bonus’ it has been recorded 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 declared, shall vest in the policy and shall be payable along with and as and when the sum assured is payable.”

9.                 Now, it is established on record that the company may declare a rate of reversionary bonus at the end of the financial year which shall be payable when the sum assured is payable. Admittedly, the present policy has neither matured nor has come to an end.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the complaint is pre-mature and at this stage, no direction can be issued to the Ops to pay reversionary bonus on the basic sum assured to the complainant. The reversionary bonus is only payable, if so declared by the Company – OP No.1 at the year-end which shall vest in the policy and shall be payable along with the sum assured.

10.              As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complaint is pre-mature, so not maintainable. Consequently, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.                    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.