DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM

(Present: Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member, (In-Charge of President)

Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member)

Date of filing: 31-12-2011

Date of Order: 02-02-2013

C.C.No.313/2011

Paloli Abdurahiman,

Kodumudi,

Valiyakathe (P.o), Complainant

Valanchery – 676552.

Vs

Bajaj Allianez Insurance Co. Ltd,

Moochikkal,

Valanchery (P.o), Opposite party

676552.

ORDER

By: Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member, (In-Charge of President)

Complainant was the policy holder of Bajaj Alliance Fortune Plus plan under opposite party on october 2008 onwards. The premium amount of this policy was Rs. 25000 per year and complainant remitted Rs. 75000 for 3 years. After the payment of continouous three premiunm the policy holder can withdraw the amount in the fourth years. So complainant gave request to withdrawel on fourth year. Even though he had remitted Rs. 75000 he has received only Rs. 60441. Though the complainant gave the cheque leaf and account No.opposite party issued the cheque only to HDFC Bank. It caused a loss of one weelo time and financial loss as commission to the bank. At the time of taking the policy opposite party offered quarentee that it has no loss or deduction to the remitted amount. But opposite party gave 60441 only though he had paid Rs. 75000. Hence he filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant requested to pay Rs. 57000 as compensation for the financial loss to the complainant

Opposite party filed version. He denies the averments and allegations of complainant except those which he specifically admitted. Opposite party admits the policy of the complainant under them. But he content that the liability under the policy is subject to the terms and conditions and limitations in the policy. Opposite party submit that as per the terms and conditions of the policy complainant / the policy holder can surrender the policy with in 15 days if he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. But complainant has not raised any objection regarding this. Opposite party further submits that complainant was convinced fully about the scheme and its details before executing the proposal form. The benefit term of the policy was 20 years and the annual premium was 25000 per year. The risk coverage under the policy was Rs. 125000. Opposite party content that he issued the detailed schedule and policy terms and conditions to the complainant. The allocation of the Fund is made as per the directions of the policy holder. So opposite party has no responsibility for the increase or decrease in the value of fund. Opposite party again submits that the allocation of fund is made as per the directions of the policy holder/ complainant. So this opposite party in no way is responsible for the increase or decrease in his value of fund. In the above case the complainant had given standing instruction to this opposite party through clause 5 of the proposal form that his investible premium be apportioned 50% in equity index fund and balance is asset allocation fund. It is also very clear from the clause 27 of the policy that there are various others schemes for allocation of funds and the policy holder can select any one of them according to his wish. Hence this opposite party also submits that the performance of the fund of complainant was directly related to the performance of capital markets and this opposite party in no way is responsible for the increase or decrease in the fund value of the complainant. It is also very clearly stated on the top of the proposal form that the risk of fund allocation is to be borne by the policy holder. From these it is very clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.

It is also submited that the complainant approached this opposite party and expressed his willingness to surrender the policy and this opposite party informed the surrender value of the policy was Rs. 61,097/- as of that particular date. But after that when the day on which the complainant surrendered the policy, the value of fund of complainant decreased to Rs. 60,441/- Hence this opposite party is no way responsible for the any increase or decrease to the fund value which is linked to the capital market.

This opposite party denies entire version stated in 2,3 and 4the paras of complaint. This opposite party submits that the surrender value is normally paid through direct credit to the policy holder's bank account by way of Electronic Fund Transfer (which is very safe to the policy holder). In the above case also in order to get confirmation of account details and name of account holder this opposite party collected a cancelled cheque from the policy holder/complainant. But in the above case the name of complainant was not printed in the cheque and this opposite party had to do manuval work and manuval cheque was issued a favour of the complainant and forward to the complainant in the order to avoid any further delay, which was recived by the complainant and with out any hesistation he collected the cash. Hence the delay mentioned in the complainant for issuing the cheque is not at all acceptable and there no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party.

This opposite party also submit that withdrawel/ surrender of policy is as per the terms and condition of the policy clause attached as been issued to the complainant. The complainant as joined in the plan and submited the proposal form only after understanding the terms, conditions, exceptions and exclusions in the policy clause. Hence the allegations made in the complaint are to be proved by the complainant. Opposite party submit that it is not guilty and not laches or any deficiency in service as occurred from the part of him.

For these and other reasons to be argued at the time of trial, it is pleaded that this opposite party exonerated from all liabilities in this case and the petition been dismissed with cost allowed to the opposite party.

Complainant filed affidavit and documents as evidence Ext. A1 to A4 marked on his side. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. Ext. B1 to B3 marked on behalf of them. No oral evidence adduced both sides.

Point to decide:-

(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in their service?

(ii) If so what is the relief and cost.

(i) Complainant submits that he has taken the policy from opposite party on October 2008. The premium amount of the policy was Rs. 25000/- per year. He had paid 3 premium amount Rs. 75000. Then he surrendered the policy and he received Rs. 60441 only after the lapse of 3 years which amount is less than the paid amount. He also alleges that opposite party paid this amount after a thirteen days delay. He again alleges that eventhough he had given the cheque leaf and account No, opposite party issued the cheque to HDFC Bank and there by he had suffered a loss of time and money as commission of the bank. Opposite party content that as per the terms and condition of the policy opposite party is not responsible for the decrease or increase of the value of the fund. He state that complainant had been given instruction through clause 5 of the proposal form that his investible premium be apportioned 50% in equity index fund and balance in asset allocation fund. Opposite party content that there are various other schemes for fund allocation and the policy holder can select any one of them according to his wish. The performance of the funds of complainant was directly related to the performance of capital markets. So opposite party is not responsible for the decrease or increase of the fund value of the complainant. We can't accept this contention of opposite party. Complainant has no direct relation ship with the capital markets. Opposite party offered guarenty at the time of policy proposal that there is no loss or deduction in the remitted amount. But here complainant received only Rs. 60441/- Which is less than the remitted amount of Rs. 75000 it is given after the lapse of 3 years more. Both sides has not produced the policy terms and conditions before the Forum to show the conditions and terms of the policy. It is very clear that opposite party gives big offeres to the poor consumers through their agents and traps them and make them as a policy holder. Then they slowlsy withdraw from the liability. Such act of opposite party amounts deficiency of the service. Another allegation of the complainant is that he had get the policy amount after the delay of 13 days and though the complainant gave the cheque leaf and account number to opposite party for cash payment but opposite party issued the cheque only HDFC bank. It caused to him a financial loss towards bank commission and loss of time. Ext. B3 shows that complainant submited a cheque leaf to opposite party with account No. in south Indian Bank Valanchery branch as demanded by the opposite party. But opposite party issued cheque to HDFC bank. Opposite party has no answer why he had issued the cheque to HDFC Bank. From the above discussion we hold that the act of opposite party is not justifiable and it is illegal .

Complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 75000 to the alleged policy for 3 years. The premium amount for the policy is Rs. 25000 per year. The risk coverage under the policy is Rs. 125000 complainant states that the policy holder can withdraw the amount during the Fourth year of policy opposite party admitted the withdrawal and paid Rs. 60441 though the complainant had paid Rs. 75000 as premium amount for three years. Opposite party content tht he is not responsible for the loss. But opposite party is the insurer of the policy who have the duty to handle the premium amount for the benefit of the policy holder. He is not having the knowledge about the business of opposite party. Complainant sworn that at the time of policy proposal opposite party offered guarenty that there is no loss or deduction to the remitted amount. From the above discussion we have no hesitation that opposite party is liable to pay the remitted amount of Rs. 75000 to the complainant. He admits that he had received Rs. 60441. Therefore he is liable to get the balance amount Rs. 14559 with a compensation of Rs. 5000 for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices along with cost of Rs. 500 with in 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14559 to the complainant with compensation 5000 along with cost of Rs. 500/- with in three week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 2nd day of February , 2013

Sd/-

E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4

Ext.A1(s) : A letter issued opposite party to complainant

Ext.A2 : Payment reference from HDFC BANK to complainant, dated, 18/11/2011

Ext A3 : Registered Bank Details for direct credit, dated, 11/11/2011

Ext A4(s) : Payment reference letter from HDFC BANK to complainant, dated, 18/11/2011

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3

Ext.B1 : Proposal form for life insurance

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of Surrender/Partial withdrawal Request Form

Ext.B3 : Cancelled cheque savings bank account from South Indian Bank Limited Valancheri Branch.

Sd/-

E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN,MEMBER