DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 247 of 28-5-2012
Decided on 7-09-2012
Suresh Kumar Jain aged about 58 years, S/o Chaman Lal S/o Durga Dass, resident of H.No.4748, Street No.3, New Basti, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, ICICI Building, Bibiwala Road, near DAV College, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Shanghai Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager/MD.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh. M.L Bansal,counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite parties allured the complainant to purchase the insurance policy. The different benefits will be given to him such as the amount would be doubled within a period of 3 years and the complainant could withdraw the amount at any time with interest and accrued benefits of the policy and the complainant will remain assured for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The agent of the opposite parties took the signatures of the complainant on the blank proposal form after filling the name and address as well as name of nominee. The opposite parties have never supplied any policy or terms and conditions thereof. On relying upon the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- as first premium with the opposite parties on 4.7.2007 and the opposite parties have intimated him that the policy No.0034875655 has been allocated to him and the policy with terms and conditions will be sent to him shortly. The complainant further deposited two more premiums of Rs.10,000/- each on 4.1.2008 and 4.1.2009 respectively. On completion of 3 years in January, 2010 the complainant has approached the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith return/interest as assured by them at the time of effecting the insurance in the year 2007. The opposite parties have expressed their inability and intimated the complainant that it is unit linked life term policy with the last date of the premium as 4.1.2022 and the policy is of 15 years. At the time of purchasing of the insurance policy, the age of the complainant was 54 years in the year 2007 and no person can be expected to purchase a policy for 15 years extending upto the age of 69 years. The opposite parties handed over the policy account statement which shows that the amount deposited by him has fund value of only Rs.15478.75 against the actual amount deposited of Rs.30,000/-. The opposite parties have further intimated the complainant that he has to deposit Rs.20,000/- immediately and Rs.10,000/- per year till the year 2022 failing which the said policy will lapse and no amount will be payable thereafter. The opposite parties have made false assurance and made false representation to the complainant. The complainant has approached the opposite parties to know the status of the policy with the request to refund the abovesaid amount alongwith its benefits or interest occurred thereon but they neither refunded the abovesaid amount nor gave any satisfactory reply. Hence, the present complaint.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this forum have filed their joint written statement and have pleaded that the complaint is time barred. Since the policy in question was issued with Date of Commencement as 4.1.2007. The complainant has neither lodged any complaint nor raised any protest with regard to the terms and conditions of the policy bond, he admitted that he had received the same in the year 2007 and continued to pay yearly premiums for the year 2008 and 2009 as per the schedule of the policy bond. The payment of the regular premium clearly indicates that the complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and was also satisfied with the same. This complaint has been filed at the belated stage after the expiry of more than 5 years of the date of issue of the policy. The complainant is 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 the insurance as per the Policy Holders' Protections Regulation, 2002. The complainant has purchased the policy after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks & terms and conditions of the Unit Linked Regular Premium 'Capital Unit Gain' plan, himself out of his free will, proposed for the said unit linked plan vide proposal dated 29.12.2006 and opted to pay regular yearly premiums @ Rs.10,000/- for premium paying terms of 15 years. The salient features of the policy are given as below:-
a) Commencement date 4.1.2007
b) Sum Assured Rs.75,000/-
c) Annual Premium Rs.10,000/-
d) Premium Frequency Annual
The policy documents included the Policy Schedule, the 'Right to Reconsider' Notice, copy of the proposal form, the standard terms and conditions and the first premium receipt alongwith the policy schedule. The complainant has deposited only two regular premiums on 4.1.2008 and 4.1.2009, and thereafter he has not deposited the regular premium and as a good gesture, the opposite parties approached the complainant apprising him about the regular premium due, but he has failed to deposit the regular premium despite he was apprised for the same nor he surrendered the policy nor got revived the policy and the fund value, if any, shall be refunded to him as per condition No.18 of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had paid the first premium on 4.1.2007. The complainant has never disputed that the policy was for 5 years and he has never lodged any complaint with regard to non receipt of the policy document containing terms and conditions rather continued to pay yearly premiums due on 4.1.2008 and 4.1.2009. The complainant has deposited the 3rd premium on 4.1.2009 and it is also the case of the complainant that the surrender value was payable in January, 2010 and the present complaint has been filed in May, 2012 after the gap of more than 2 years, which is again time barred.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The contention of the complainant is that on the allurement of the opposite parties, he has purchased the insurance policy and has deposited Rs.10,000/- as first premium on 4.1.2007 and the policy No.0034875655 has been issued to him and the policy with terms and conditions was sent to him. The complainant has deposited two premiums of Rs.10,000/- each on 4.1.2008 and 4.1.2009 respectively and on completion of 3 years in January, 2010 he approached the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith return/interest as assured by them at the time of effecting the insurance in the year 2007 but the opposite parties have expressed their inability and intimated him that it is unit linked life term policy and the term of the policy is 15 years and the last date of the premium is 4.1.2022. At the time of purchase of the above mentioned insurance policy, the age of the complainant was 54 years and there was no question for taking the policy of 15 years i.e. extending upto the age of 69 years. The policy account statement issued by opposite parties shows that the fund value of the policy is only Rs.15478.75 against the actual deposited amount of Rs.30,000/-. The opposite parties have intimated him that he has to deposit Rs.20,000/- immediately and Rs.10,000/- per year till the year 2022 failing which the said policy will lapse and no amount will be payable thereafter. The opposite parties have made false assurance and made false representation to him.
6. The opposite parties on the other hand taken the legal objection that this complaint is time barred as the cause of action arises in the year 2007 when the complainant has purchased the said policy and he has himself admitted that the policy terms & conditions has been issued to him alongwith policy documents and Right to Reconsider letter. If the complainant was not satisfied with the policy, he should have availed the Free Look Period and should have got cancelled his policy in the Free Look Period but he has not availed this facility. Moreover, in January, 2008 and January, 2009 he had paid two regular premiums and in total he had paid 3 premiums, the next premium was due in January, 2010. The receipt of the first payment was given to the complainant and it was fully explained in the said receipt that the policy is for 15 years and the complainant has to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- till the year 2022, meaning thereby he has to deposit Rs.10,000/- annual premium till the year 2022. Moreover, he had paid last premium in January, 2009. Again if it is considered that the period of limitation starts from January, 2010, the complainant would have filed the complaint upto January, 2012 but he has filed the present complaint after the expiry of the period of 2 years. Thus his complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.
7. It is admitted by the parties that the complainant has deposited the 3 premiums first in January, 2007, second in January, 2008 and third in January, 2009.
8. The legal objection of the opposite parties is that this complaint is time barred as the cause of action has arisen in January,2007 then in January, 2010 for filing the present complaint is not tenable, as the complainant has been depositing the amount since January, 2007 till January, 2009 and his next premium was due in January, 2010. Thus he has to pay 4th year premium in 2010, moreover the policy period is 15 years i.e. upto 2022. Hence this complaint is not barred by limitation. Furthermore his amount of Rs.30,000/- is still lying deposited with the opposite parties and the fund value is not paid by the opposite parties till date.
9. The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties while alluring him to sell the abovesaid policy, assured him that he would get double the amount deposited within three years and could withdraw the amount anytime with interest and accured benefits of the policy. He came to know later on that the policy has been given for 15 days whereas his age at the time of purchasing the said policy was 54 years. Being a person of prudent mind he cannot purchase the policy of 15 years at the age of 54 years as the life expectancy is not more.
10. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has paid only 3 premiums and due to the non payment of the 4th premium in January, 2010 his policy lapsed which has not revived by him and if he is entitled for any refund, that will be given per clause 18 of the terms and conditions. A perusal of Ex.R13, the product circular, Bajaj Allianz Capital Unitgain and Department Product Development, product code 069, issued/launched dated 11.12.2006 shows that the opposite parties have nowhere mentioned that Ex.R13 is applicable on the complainant or this is ever conveyed to the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have placed on file the terms and conditions of the policy as he has purchased his policy in the year, 2007 and the premium was paid in January, 2007. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C3 statement of account dated 24.5.2012. This account statement shows the transaction date July, 2009 and unitize date 30 July, 2009. The net investment of rupees shows as 8398.34, unit price 13.0250, the allocated units 644.7862, NAV shown as 15.7587 to the regular premium fund value Rs.15478.75 and Capital units 333.2384 and the account value shown of Rs.15478.75. Moreover, after 29 July, 2009 the 4th premium was due on 1st January, 2010 there was no record, no entry of that period. His policy cannot be considered lapsed before 1st January, 2010. It is not understandable that how the opposite parties have closed the statement upto 30 July, 2009. Neither there is any explanation nor any documentary evidence placed on file that how his money was invested after 29th July, 2009. Thus this account statement cannot be relied upon. The complainant has paid the 3 premiums and had not paid the 4th premium. The policy lapsed in the 4th year. The complainant is entitled for the refund as per the IRDA regulations, 2010. The relevant portion of Clause 8 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Standarization of terms and conditions of ULIP Products and treatment of lapsed policies) Regulation, 2010 reads as under :-
“8 Surrender Charges:
It is observed that Insurers apply different surrender charges while paying the surrender value to the insured. After due consideration of various practices, the Authority orders that the surrender charges (as percentage of fund value) shall not exceed the limits specified below:-
Year Policy Period
Less than 10 years More than 10 years
1st year 12.50% 15%
2nd year 10.00% 12.50%
3rd year 7.50% 10%
4th year 5.00% 7.50%.........”
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above, the complainant is entitled to get the refund according to the aforementioned table i.e after deduction of 7.50% from the three premiums paid i.e. Rs.30,000/-. Thus this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.27,750/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
In case non compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.27,750/- till realization.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
07-09-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
