Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/915/2013

Suresh Kumar S/o Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Virender Saini

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.915 of 2013.

                                                     Date of institution: 19.12.2013.

                                                     Date of decision: 11.10.2017.

Suresh Kumar, aged about 48 years, s/o Shri Babu Ram, R/o Village Khanri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ganpati Building, First Floor, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
3. Kulwant Dhiman (agent of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.), resident of Garhi Gosai, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                   ….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. V.K.Saini, Advocate, for complainant.   

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                None for Op No.3.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                The complainant-Suresh Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the Op No.3, who is an agent of Ops No.1 & 2 came at the house of complainant and represented that there are various attractive/beneficial policies of Ops No.1 & 2 and company is giving double amount against several policies.  It is alleged that the complainant visited at the office of Op No.2 and believing the assertions made by the Ops, the complainant signed some papers in good faith and also paid Rs.12,000/- to the Ops on 04.05.2010 and it was assured by the OPs that the policy will be sent to the complainant within few days.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.36,000/- with the Ops  i.e. Rs.12,000/- on 04.05.2010, Rs.12,000/- on 09.05.2011 and Rs.12,000/- on 07.05.2012.  It is further alleged that after three years i.e. the period of the maturity of the policy in question, the complainant requested the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- i.e. double amount of Rs.36,000/- to him but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- i.e. double amount of policy No.0167811930 alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and further to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statements. Ops No.1 & 2 filed the joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is time-barred; that the policy bearing No.0167811930 was issued strictly in accordance with the proposal form dt. 04.05.2010 signed and submitted by the complainant himself.  The complainant himself opted for Non Linked Regular Premium “Invest Plus Premier” policy with premium payment term & benefit term of 20 years and thus, the policy was to be matured on 04.05.2030.  Thus, neither any maturity claim has fallen due nor he has submitted any request for surrender value under the policy, so, the question of making any payment to the complainant does not arise.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.3 filed the written statement and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and stated that he never contacted the complainant for issuance of any policy and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

6.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Daljit Singh, Customer Support Executive, Ex.R/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Kulwant Dhiman, Annexure-R3/A and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.3.       

7.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8.             After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2.  From the perusal of the entire facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant has moved from pillar to post to obtain /refund of the amount lying deposited by him with the OPs No.1 & 2-Insurance Company.  The complainant had invested his hard earned money with the OPs No.1 & 2-Insurance Company who have failed to disclose in its written statement that where the amount so deposited by the complainant was invested and what was the fate of this amount.  We generally see that when we go to the bank, insurance company or any other institute, there are voluminous documents which are required to be signed by the concerned person and it is also seen that every document which is got signed is not humanely possible to be gone through by the concerned person and undue benefits is taken of this situation.  Similarly, in the present case, the Ops misguided the complainant and sold the policy in question to the complainant on the false assurance that the amount deposited by the complainant shall become double after the expiry of 3 years and on this misrepresentation, the complainant was allured to obtain the policy in question.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 19.12.2013 but even then the Ops No.1 & 2 till date have not disclosed before this forum that the complainant is entitled to what amount.  Even the officials of Ops No.1 & 2 did not bother to file any affidavit disclosing the paid-up value against the policy in question.  The complainant has hired the services of Ops-insurance company just to invest his hard money and the Ops-insurance company might have charged some amount on account of service charge and stamp duties etc., so, it was the duty of Ops-insurance company as-well-as their agents to provide proper and correct information to the complainant from time to time but they did not do so.  Besides this, the Ops No.1 & 2 have taken the stand that they have sent the policy bond alongwith terms and conditions to the complainant through speed post but no document has been placed on file by the Ops No.1 & 2 from which it could be ascertained that they have sent the policy bond alongwith terms and conditions to the complainant.    

9.             Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2-Insurance Company to refund Rs.25,200/- i.e. 70% of the deposited premium amount i.e. Rs.36,000/- (after deducting 30% amount on account of office expenses, commission of agreement, stamp duty service, service charges etc.) within 30 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of the copy of this orders failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dated: 11.10.2017.

                                                            (SATPAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER