Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/715/2011

Suresh Pal S/o Shyam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Parveen Sharma

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint  No. 715 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 08.07.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 18.04.2017

Suresh Pal aged about 38 years son of Shri Shyam Singh, resident of Kothi No.1, gali No.1, Jat Nagar, Radaur, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune-411 006 through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ganpati Building, First Floor, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Darshan Lal son of Shri Ganga Ram, resident of House No. 1028, Ward No. 9, Geeta Colony, Radaur, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present: Sh. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

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

              None for OP No.3.

           

ORDER       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Suresh Pal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that respondent No.3 ( hereinafter respondents will be referred as Ops) who is agent of Ops No.1 & 2 represented the complainant that there was a very attractive and beneficial policy of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company and in that policy the complainant will have to pay Rs. 20,000/- per year for 3 years and he further assured that after the expiry of 3 years, the amount deposited by the complainant will automatically be doubled so there will be heavy profit in the policy. Accordingly, the complainant signed some papers in good faith and also paid Rs. 20,000/- to the Ops No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 on 29.08.2007. After that as per facts, the complainant had to deposit the premium amount year by year. So, he deposited Rs. 60,000/- with the Ops No.1 & 2 company i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per year for 3 years. After 3 years, the complainant requested the OP No.3 withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in favour of the complainant from the company but the OP no.3 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. After that complainant visited the office of the OP No.2 and requested them to refund the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- but the official of Op No.2 told to the complainant that amount deposited by the complainant is not doubled as the OP No.3 got deposited the said amount in wrong policy i.e. “ Equity Growth Fund” instead of policy in which the amount will automatically be doubled. After that, the complainant enquired from the official of Op No.2 that how much amount of the complainant is increased  in the abovesaid policy, then the official of the Op No.2 told to the complainant that no more amount has been increased  and the amount deposited by the complainant is going down day by day and if the complainant will not withdraw his amount immediately, then his amount will lapse automatically and further told that Rs. 65,193.43 is lying in the account of the complainant against the policy. Accordingly, the complainant requested the Ops to refund of his amount and provided bank account number but when complainant checked his account, he was stunned that instead of Rs. 65193.43 the Ops No.1 &2 have deposited only Rs. 53,496.87 in the account of the complainant. In this way, the Ops No.1 & 2 has played great fraud upon the complainant and complainant has become a victim in the hands of the Ops. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- i.e. double amount against policy bearing No. 0063840570 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                     Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is hopelessly time barred as the policy in question was issued with the date of commencement as 08.09.2007 and the present complaint has been filed after a period of 4 years and continued to pay the renewal premium for the subsequent years as well which clearly indicate that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy; the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint as the policy in question stands already surrendered by him as per terms and conditions of the policy and permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 53,482/- stands paid by the Ops Insurance Company on 11.10.2010 towards full and final settlement of his all claims under the policy; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. The surrender value under the policy has legally and rightly been paid by the company strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and nothing is more due to be paid by the Ops No.1 & 2. The relevant clause of the policy document under the heading “Non Payment of Regular Premium & Forfeiture, Surrender Value & Surrender Charges”, it has been clearly mentioned that surrender charges will be applicable. Since, the complainant paid three (3) regular premium and made a request for surrender value which was expeditiously processed by the Ops No.1 & 2 Insurance Company and the surrender value calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy amounting to Rs. 53,482/- stands already credited to the bank account of the complainant; the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint due to his own act and conduct; the complainant being an educated prudent person and Advocate by profession, himself proposed for the regular premium unit linked “ Capital Unit Gain” plan of the Ops No.1 & 2 after duly understanding the features, benefits, investments risk and terms and conditions of the plan vide proposal dated 29.08.2007 and opted out of his free will to pay yearly regular premium at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per year for a term of 20 years. The proposal form was accepted and a policy bearing No. 0063840570 was issued to him. The original policy bond containing terms and conditions was dispatched to the complainant vide registered letter No. 82008081 dated 16.10.2007. The complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding non receipt of the policy bond and never disputed the receipt of the policy documents for about 4 years. Further, he continued to pay the renewal premium for the subsequent years which clearly indicates that he was fully satisfied. It has been further mentioned that the complainant was given 15 days free look cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract. However, as the complainant was fully satisfied, so he never approached the Ops No.1 & 2 to cancel the policy within a period of 15 days free look cancellation period and on merit the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as the surrender value of Rs. 53,486/-, after deducting the surrender charges, has already been credited in his account bearing No. 55121706124 on 11.10.2010.

4.                      OP No.3 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has obtained the insurance policy after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is an advocate who can very well understand each and everything; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct 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.

5.                     In support of the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and document such as photo copy of surrender value letter dated 04.10.2010 as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shalini Guglani Division Head as Annexure R1/A and documents such as Photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R1/1, Photo copy of pass book as Annexure R1/2 and R1/3, Photo copy of Identity card as Annexure R1/4, Photo copy of forwarding letter for sending the insurance policy alongwith schedule of the insurance policy in question as Annexure R1/5, Photo copy of product circular of Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain as Annexure R1/6, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R1/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     Neither anyone appeared on behalf of OP No.3 nor adduced any evidence, hence the evidence of OP No.3 was closed by court order on dated 06.03.2017.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy “Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain’ bearing No. 0063840570 on 20.06.2007 and paid Rs. 20,000/- to the OPs No.1&2. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid three installments regularly of Rs. 20,000/- each to the OPs No.1&2 during the first three (3) policy years. The only version of the complainant is that it was assured on behalf of the OPs Insurance Company that after three (3) 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. Even the OPs Insurance Company failed to refund the amount of Rs. 65,193.43  as surrender value whereas the OPs No.1 & 2 deposited only an amount of Rs. 53,496.87 in his account.

10                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 20 years but the complainant paid only three yearly installment of Rs. 20,000/- each and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and surrendered the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 53,482/- stands already credited in his State Bank of Patiala account No. 55121706124 on 11.10.2010  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 No.1 & 2 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 Capital Unit Gain just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 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 No.1 & 2 prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

11.                   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. Although, from the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R-1/5 bearing No. 0063840570 dated 08.09.2007, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain in his name issued by the Ops No.1 & 2 in the year 2007 and 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).  

12.                   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.

13.                   Further, the complainant has received the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 53482/- which stands already credited to his SBOP Bank account No. 55121706124 on 11.10.2010 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount was received by the complainant without raising any protest and the present complaint has been filed after a period of 10 months from the date of receipt of payment. It means the OPs have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy in question.

14.                   In the circumstances noted above, 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.

15.                   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: 18.04.2017

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)       (S.C.SHARMA )               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

MEMBER                                        MEMBER                         PRESIDENT,

                                                                                                     DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.