Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/902/2011

Parjjwal S/o Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.K.Kochar

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.902 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 25.08.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 11.01.2017

Parjjwal aged about 11 years minor son of Sh. Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Pal, resident of House No. 1721, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through next friend, natural guardian his father Sh. Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Pal resident of H. No. 1721, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, 411006 through its Managing Director. 
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Ganpati Building, First Floor Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Nidhi Maini, Insurance Agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. resident of H. No. B-IX-1353, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. N.K.Kochar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2.

              Respondent No.3 already given up vide order dated 08.04.2013.  

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Parjjwal has filed the present complaint through his father natural guardian Sh. Pawan Kumar under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 0096612386 dated 11.04.2008 from the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs). The OP No.3 who is agent of Op No.1 and 2 came at the house of complainant and represented that there is a very attractive/ beneficial policy of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company and in that policy the complainant have to pay Rs. 15,000/- per year for three years and he further assured that after expiry of three years, the amount deposited by the complainant will automatically be doubled, so there is a heavy profit in that policy. Besides this, that the complainant will get other benefits such as accidental claim etc. Believing the assertion made by the OP No.3, the complainant signed some papers in good faith and also paid Rs. 15,000/- to Op No.1 and 2 through OP No.3 on 11.04.2008. In this way, the complainant deposited Rs. 45,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per year with the OPs and requested the OPs to send the original policy containing terms and conditions therein from time to time but they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 and requested them to pay the sum of as assured by OPs but the official of OP No.2 said that amount deposited by him is not doubled as the Op No.3 has got deposited the amount of complainant in a wrong policy i.e. Equity Growth Fund” instead of a policy in which the amount will automatically be doubled and thereafter the complainant enquired from the officails of Op No.2 that how much amount of the complainant is increased in the abovesaid policy, then the officials of the Op No.2 said to the complainant that no more amount has been increased and amount deposited by the complainant is going down day by day and they stated that Rs. 49156.01 is lying in the account of the complainant against the policy. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to refund the aforesaid amount but he was stunned to know that instead of Rs. 49,156/- the OPs have deposited only Rs. 41,875.42 in his account. In this way, the OPs have played a great fraud upon the complainant and the complainant has become a victim in the hands of the OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- i.e. double amount of policy No. 0096612386 as assured by the Ops to the complainant alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.3 given up vide order dated 08.04.2013 being unnecessary party. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and is prima faice liable to be dismissed. The policy No. 0096612386 was issued with date of commencement as 11.04.2008 as proposed by the complainant himself on the life of his son Mr. Prajwal and the original policy bond containing the terms and conditions of the life insurance contract was dispatched to the complainant which was duly received by him. The complainant neither disputed the receipt of policy document for all these years nor did he ever lodged any protest w.e.t. the terms and conditions of the policy for about 3 years & 9 months and paid 3 yearly premiums in total strictly as expressly mentioned in the schedule of the policy bond received by him which clearly indicates that he was fully aware & satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the policy in question stands already surrendered by him and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 42151/- stands already credited to his OBC Bank Account No. 10312191008213 on 30.04.2011 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount stands received by the complainant without raising any protest towards full and final settlement of the permissible surrender value under the policy; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; The relevant clauses of policy terms and conditions under the heading Surrender Value & Surrender Charges” may kindly be referred to. Since the complainant paid premiums for first 3 years and made a request for the surrender of the policy and after processing the request the amount of Rs. 42151/- was paid to the complainant which was duly received by him towards full and final payment of surrender value under the policy without raising any protest. The complainant was offered 15 days free look cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance as per the policy Holder’ Protections Regulation, 2002 and the said free look clause was specifically mentioned in the proposal form submitted by the complainant himself.  Complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct. The complainant himself proposed for the Regular Premium Unit Linked “Unit Gain Plus Gold” plan of the OPs after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks and terms and conditions of plan proposed for the said policy vide proposal dated 31.03.2008 and opted to pay regular yearly premium of Rs. 15,000/-. The proposal was accepted and policy bearing No. 0096612386 was issued to him. The complainant has challenged the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance duly approved by the IRDA which requires a full scale trial in recording the detailed evidence, so this Forum have no jurisdiction and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.                     In support of his complaint, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of Receipt dated 08.04.2009 of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith surrender form as well as Proposal form etc. as Annexure C-1, and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shiv Prasad Singh, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of letter dated 07.09.2015 alongwith schedule as well as receipt and terms and conditions as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy “Unit Gain Plus Gold bearing No. 0096612386 on 31.03.2008 and paid Rs. 15,000/- to the OP No.2. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid three installments regularly of Rs. 15,000/- each to the OP No.2 during the first three policy years. The only version of the complainant is that it was assured on behalf of the OPs Insurance Company that after three years, if the complainant wish to withdraw the said policy, the OPs Insurance Company will make the double amount but all the assurance given by the official of the OPs turned out to be false and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 45,000/- invested by the complainant in the policy in question alongwith all the benefits.

8                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 10 years but the complainant paid only three yearly installment of Rs. 15,000/- each and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and surrendered the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 42151/- stands already credited in his OBC account No. 10312191008213 on 30.04.2011 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount stands received by the complainant without raising any protest towards full and final settlement of the permissible surrender value under the policy. Thus, the OPs have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy strictly in accordance with the law and nothing more is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy. Further, learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company argued that the complainant has invested his money in Unit Link Policy called Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed.

             Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R-1 bearing No. 0096612386 dated 11.04.2008, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold in the name of his son issued by the Ops in the year 2008. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

10.                   Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. The same view has been held in case titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium.

11.                   Further, the complainant has received the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 42151/- stands already credited to his OBC Bank account No. 10312191008213 on 30.04.2011 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount received by the complainant without raising any protest. It means the OPs have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy in question.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the Ops had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 11.01.2017

                                 (S.C.SHARMA )                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT,