Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/2/2022

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar Adv.

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	2 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2022
Date of Decision	:	27.09.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Gagandeep Singh, National Watch House, Booth No.313, Phase-5,SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.215-216, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY :-   

 

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Gagandeep Singh (appellant herein), against order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby his consumer complaint bearing No.611 of 2018 has been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

2.             The case of the complainant (appellant herein), namely, Sh. Gagandeep Singh, before the Ld. District Commission was that as per the assurances given by the representative of the opposite parties (respondents herein), he invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and policy No.00448000001 was issued to him. It was alleged that after 10 years of its maturity, he was entitled to get interest @12% p.a. on the invested amount or double of the same and his life was to be insured during the existence of the policy period. After 10 years, the appellant requested respondent No.1 to release the amount but the matter was lingered on one pretext or the other.  The appellant was informed that the maturity date is 24.03.2026 and prior to that, amount cannot be released. Thereafter, after going through the policy, it came to his notice that the maturity date is 24.03.2027 and not 2017. It was stated that the agent of the respondents mislead the appellant by giving false assurances. The appellant requested the respondents many times and even wrote an e-mail to release the deposited amount and also served a legal notice dated 24.09.2018 upon the respondents but of no avail.

3.             On the other hand, the respondents contested the complaint by pleading that the appellant, after fully understanding the features, benefits, risks and terms and conditions of whole life Regular Premium “Unit Gain” Plan himself out of his own free will, proposed for the policy vide proposal dated 24.03.2007. It was stated that the policy in question was issued with date of commencement as 24.03.2007 strictly in accordance with the proposal dated 24.03.2007 and the original policy bond containing express & agreed terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was sent, which the appellant received. It was further stated that the appellant opted for regular premium policy wherein he was required to pay annual premium @Rs.1,00,000/- without any obligation on the respondents to issue any notice thereof but the appellant did not pay premiums due on 24.03.2008 and onwards and hence, the policy in question lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the contract and he failed to get the policy revived within the permissible revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium and the said revival period expired on 24.03.2010 and as such, the contract of insurance stands terminated and nothing is payable. 

4.           However, Ld. District Commission, vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2021, dismissed the complaint of the appellant by observing that the terms and conditions of the policy were binding upon the appellant and  therefore, he was not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as premium with interest. It further observed that the appellant failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 

5.           The only question, which falls for consideration in the present appeal, is as to whether the appellant/ complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by him towards the policy in question.

6.             It may be stated here that the appellant has placed on record copy of order dated 28.02.2022 passed by this Commission in case titled ‘Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Harvinder Singh & others’, First Appeal No.41 of 2020, wherein under similar circumstances, Sh. Harvinder Singh had invested the amount in Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company and was assured that after 10 years, he would be entitled for double of the invested amount or interest @12% p.a. and life insurance for the period of 10 years. Accordingly, Sh. Harvinder Singh paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs receipt dated 11.2.2008 as first premium.  After completion of 10 years, when Sh. Harvinder Singh approached Opposite Party No.1 for the release of his invested amount, he was shocked know that due to non-payment of the renewal premiums, the policy got lapsed and further foreclosed and all policy benefits including sum assured got ceased. The Ld. District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh allowed the complaint of Sh. Harvinder Singh and directed refund of Rs.3 Lakhs alongwith 9% interest from the date of deposit besides awarding Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  This Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company i.e. appeal No.41 of 2020 vide order dated 28.02.2022. On the other hand, in order to prove their case to the effect that the appellant is not entitled for refund of any amount, the respondents have placed on record Policy Document, Annexure R-4, whereby they have placed reliance on clause 3(c), which speaks of surrender value. It is significant to mention here that the respondents have failed to convince this Commission that the said policy terms and conditions were ever supplied to the appellant, except, Annexure C-1, which is a Policy containing two pages. Furthermore, when the grievance of the appellant was not redressed, he wrote letter dated March 2018, Annexure C-2, to the respondents, wherein he clearly intimated that the agent assured that it was only a one time investment for ten years and the money would be doubled thereafter. The respondents in response thereto vide email dated 02.04.2018, Annexure C-3, conveyed the appellant that since they have received only one premium, as such, the policy is foreclosed. In this email also, the respondents did not mention anything regarding surrender clause contained in the policy documents. Thereafter, the appellant served legal notice dated 24.09.2018, Annexure C-4, reiterating the facts narrated in letter, Annexure C-2. To the utter shock, the said legal notice was not even replied by the respondents. In our considered opinion, once it has not been proved by the respondents that any clause with regard to surrender value was brought to the notice of the appellant at the time of issuance of the policy in question, now they cannot regale out from refunding the amount of Rs.1 Lakh on the basis of the policy documents, which were not signed by the appellant. It may also be stated here that in the case Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Harvinder Singh & others (supra), this Commission held in Para 6, inter-alia, as under:-

“6.            So far as the next contention raised that the policy of respondent No.1/complainant did not attain any surrender value, it may be stated here that this issue has also been rightly addressed by the District Commission in its order. While dismissing the claim of respondent No.1/complainant, the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not disclose the fund value that the investment of respondent No.1/complainant had acquired at the time when the policy stood discontinued for non-payment of subsequent premiums. We further endorse the view expressed by the District Commission that neither any statement of account was placed on record by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 before the District Commission nor a particular date was disclosed, wherefrom it could be believed for the reason that a huge investment of Rs.3,00,000/- could not just diminish to Nil amount. It (District Commission) further rightly held that it was incumbent upon the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 to prove their version with a cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from their records, which they failed to do….”

7.           Since the appellant is not signatory to the policy document, Annexure R-4 and was supplied only the policy document, Annexure C-1, containing two pages wherein nothing is mentioned as regards any surrender value, as such, the appellant cannot be denied of refund of the amount of Rs.1 Lakh paid as first premium. It may also be added here that the documents, Annexures R-1 to R-6 were placed on record by the respondents before the Ld. District Commission alongwith their written arguments.

8.             In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellant by holding to the contrary.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed by Ld. District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.611 of 2018 is partly accepted with cost. The respondents/opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed   as under:-

(a)    to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of deposit till actual realization, failing which, the said amount shall entail penal interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of passing of this order till realization.  

(b)    to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant towards compensation for deficiency in rendering service, unfair trade practice and litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of passing of this order till actual realization.

10.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

27.09.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad