Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lack only ) along with interest including compensation as well as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that as per persuasion of opposite party no. 3 and 4 the complainant has taken a policy of opposite party no. 1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. It was impressed upon the complainant that under the policy in question he will get Rs. 90,000/- after five years if he continues to pay Rs. 10,000/- for three years and when after three years the aforesaid amount will come to Rs. 30,000/- then after five years he will get Rs. 90,000/-.
It has been further asserted by the complainant that he opened his Khata on 12.09.2007 and continued to pay Rs. 1,250/- per month from his account and when after 4½ four and half years, the complainant enquired about the fact then he was informed that the total amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant has further asserted that the opposite parties have cheated the complainant and thereafter he closed his account and complainant paid Rs. 26,000/- instead of Rs. 45,000/- which is nothing but high handedness of opposite parties.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1,2 and 6 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant and stating therein that the cause of action has been arisen in 2007 while this case has been filed after four years i.e. 2011 and no application has been filed for condoning the delay.
It has been further asserted by opposite parties that there is no such policy which enjoins upon the opposite parties to pay Rs. 90,000/- within five years for total deposit of Rs. 90,000/- that is to installment of Rs. 10,000/- per year for three years.
It has been asserted that the complainant has not applied for any pension scheme rather he had applied for a unit linked policy, stopped paying the premium and suddenly applied for surrender value on his own wish to discontinue the policy for the reason best known to the complainant.
In Para – 9 of the written statement, opposite parties have asserted following facts, “in fact, the complainant had obtained a policy namely, “ Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit gain” on 24.09.2007 for sum assured Rs. 1.50 Lacks for 14 years. The complainant had to pay monthly premium of Rs. 1,250/- only, which is apparent from the first premium receipt annexed by the complainant at page – 6 of the complaint petition. The complainant had himself opted and filled up the proposal form in his own hand being a well educated person which is apparent from the proposal form enclosed by the complainant at pages 7 to 11. It is clearly stated at the top of the proposal form (page 7) itself that the unit linked policies have investment risks and the risks has to be borne by the policy holder. The complainant had chosen the policy for better gain opportunity and was ready to bear risk also at the time of taking policy.”
No any reply/rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite party no. 1 to 6 has been filed by complainant.
-
The complainant has asserted that he was assured that if he will pay Rs. 10,000/- for three years then after five years he will get Rs. 90,000/- as per pension scheme.
The opposite parties have denied the aforesaid allegation and stated that there is no scheme launched by them.
It has been further asserted by opposite parties that the complainant has obtained a policy namely Bajaj Allianz capital Unit Gain on 24.09.2007 for sum assured of Rs. 1,50,000/- for fourteen years. The complainant has annexed proposal form etc. which clearly indicates that it was a unit linked policy.
The complainant has not filed rejoinder to written statement filed by opposite party no. 1, 2 and 6.
It goes without saying that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts and no cogent evidence/documents have been annexed to show that the contention of opposite parties are not trust worthy.
For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
