JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner / complainant submitted a proposal to the respondent company for issuance of an insurance policy, paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose. The case of the petitioner / complainant as set out in the complaint is that he had applied under a Scheme known as Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Single Premium Scheme. But neither the policy document was issued to her nor the amount paid by her was refunded. She therefore approached the concerned District Forum, seeking delivery of the certificate of deposit along with compensation. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent, which inter-alia stated in its reply that the policy of the complainant was a regular Premium Policy and not a Single Premium Policy and he had failed to pay the premium, which were payable in respect of the policy issued to her. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.3.2017 disposed of the consumer complaint with a direction to the insurer to serve a duplicate / authentic copy of the policy to the complainant within two months. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, she is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. The only question involved in this petition is as regards the nature of the policy, which the petitioner / complainant had sought from the respondent. It was not disputed before me during the course of hearing that a proposal form was submitted to the insurer for obtaining the insurance policy and the said proposal form does bear the signature of the complainant Smt. Raj Kumari. A perusal of the said proposal form clearly shows that the complainant had applied for a New Unit Gain Policy and not for a Single Premium Policy. Though, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant that a blank proposal form was signed and submitted by the complainant / petitioner, no such averment was made in the consumer complaint filed by her. In the absence of such an averment, the oral statement made by the learned counsel, during the course of hearing before this Commission cannot be accepted. Moreover, no explanation is given as to why the complainant signed and submitted a blank proposal form. It would also be pertinent to note her that according to the respondent, they had already sent the policy to the complainant / petitioner and a duplicate copy of the said policy was also supplied to the concerned Lawyer during pendency of the complaint. The State Commission noted that as per the proposal form, the annual premium was payable by the complainant for as much as twenty years, the last premium being payable on 06.01.2028. Therefore, the petitioner / complainant has failed to substantiate her case that she had applied for a single premium policy. The policy applied by her and issued to her required payment of annual premium for as much as twenty years. She having failed to pay the premium, no deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering services to her is made out. The revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed. |
