Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1047

Rup Chand Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1047 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution: 09.08.2012

                                                Date of Decision : 21.09.2015

 

Rup Chand Bhardwaj, H.No.715-A, MIG-Super Phase-XI, (Sector 65), Mohali

                                                                                                                                                                              …..Appellant/Complainant  

 

                                      Versus

 

Bajaj Allianz LIC Ltd., Pune through its P. Manager, Bajaj Allianz, Life Insurance Company Ltd., G.E Plaza, Air Port Road, Verawada, Pune 411006.

 

                                                                                                                                                                       … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

First Appeal against order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mohali.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :     Sh.Rup Chand Bhardwaj in person

          For the respondent          :    Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the DH before District Forum) has carried this appeal against respondent of this appeal (the JD before District Forum), challenging order dated 12.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali, ordering to consign the execution application to the record room, as partly satisfied. The instant appeal has been preferred by the DH now appellant in this appeal against the same.

2.      The Decree Holder (the present appellant) filed  execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, "the Act") against the JD on the averments that State Consumer Commission ordered on 18.01.2012 that JD was deficient in service. The Decree Holder (being complainant) was awarded with refund of Rs.1500/- paid to him by the Commission and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and reviving of policy within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order. The DH filed execution application before District Forum praying that JD be directed to refund the first premium of Rs.11,000/- with interest from the date of payment i.e. 28.12.2006, the date of payment to company, treating that policy has been surrendered within 15 days from the date of its receipt, as per terms and condition No.35 of Free Look Period. JD has no right to refund the less amount than the amount of first premium  of Rs.11,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.4,000/- was provided towards expenses.

3.      Upon notice, JD filed reply by raising preliminary objections that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the order of the State Consumer Commission stood complied with and nothing more remained to be done. It was alleged that the District Forum committed an error by issuing notice under Section 27 of the Act without resorting to provision of Section 25 of the Act. On merits, it was contested by JD that DH/Complainant is  entitled to refund of entire amount of first premium of Rs.11,000/- rather it has to be paid, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The amount of Rs.892/- has already been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. JD prayed for dismissal of the above execution application.

4.      The District Forum passed order dated 12.07.2012 consigning the execution application of the complainant with permission to file fresh execution application for recovery of the fund value as and when DH makes up his mind to receive the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the case.

6.      The execution application has to be strictly carried out, as per main order passed by the Consumer Forum. The order passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.1911 of 2010, instituted on 02.11.2010, decided on 18.01.2012  is on the record. The District Forum ordered that appellant/DH could revive his policy up to 26.12.2009 within two years, as per terms and conditions of the policy. Withholding of the information by OP/Company showed the intention of the OP/Company that had the appellant been informed on his query regarding the policy, then appellant would not have been entitled to revival of the policy or the benefits of the policy. This Commission directed the JD/respondent to accept the defaulting amount of the premiums from the appellant without any charges within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; for the revival of the policy with all benefits. If the appellant failed to deposit the same, then he will be entitled for the refund of the amount of the first premium, as per terms and conditions of the  policy. We find that District Forum observed that under Clause 10 (b),  the complainant/DH is entitled to fund value, as on the date of lapse less the surrender charges as per Section 31(c) of the policy. The OP calculated this fund value as Rs.892/- , which was not proved to be incorrect by DH. DH wanted to be paid back the full amount of the first premium to the tune of Rs.11,000/- with interest. Since the complainant/DH was not willing to accept the fund value, hence execution application was consigned. We find that this Commission directed the OP to accept the defaulting amount of premium from the appellant without any charges within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order for the revival of the policy. In case the appellant failed to deposit the amount, then he would be entitled for the refund of the amount of the first premium as per terms and conditions of the policy. Mandate of the State Commission is clear that the appellant would be entitled for the refund of the amount of first premium as per terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum, thus, passed order appropriately that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the fund value has been calculated as Rs.892/- to be payable to DH. DH is not prepared to receive the amount and hence the execution was consigned. Consequently, we find  no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum, as DH  is not entitled to recover more fund value of the amount, as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

8.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                        (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

September  21, 2015.                                                                  

(ravi)