Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/477/2016

Navdha D/o Mrs. Rashmi aged 13 Years(minor) Date of Birth 17.05.2003, through its natural guardian/Mothet Ms. rashmi daughter of Shri C.M.Malhotra, resident of House No. 333, Sector 44-A, XChandigarh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Compnay Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	477 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	08.07.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	30.11.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Navdha daughter of Mrs.Rashmi, aged 13 years (Minor) (Date of Birth 17.5.2003), through her natural guardian/mother

 

2]  Rashmi daughter of Sh.C.M.Malhotra,

   

    Resident of H.No.333, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

 

    [Complainant No.1 is minor and is being represented by her mother/natural guardian i.e. complainant No.2 Rashmi.]

 

             ……Complainants

Versus

 

1]  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office, CE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006

 

2]  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-SCO No.215-216-217, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022

 

…..Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH          MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant NO.2 in person and on behalf of complainant No.1 also.

           Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1]       The facts in issue in the present complaint are, as per settlement in the Divorce proceedings between Smt.Rashi, Complainant NO.2 and Sh.Ripan Kumar in HMA Case No.471 of 4.10.2006, a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.0045906248 against a single premium of Rs.8.00 lacs (paid by Ripan Kumar) in favour of Ms.Navdha (minor) was executed with OPs No.1 & 2 on 28.3.2007 and accordingly, the divorce petition was disposed off vide Judgment & Decree Dated 4.4.2007 (Ann.C-1) by Hon’ble District Judge, Chandigarh, as per terms & conditions, as stipulated in the joint statement of Smt.Rashmi and her husband Sh.Ripan, the relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“….The petitioner husband has today delivered to the petitioner wife in the court, Original Insurance policy dated 28.3.2007 bearing no.0045906248 in the assured sum of rupees ten lacs in the name of our daughter Ms.Navdha.  The petitioner husband shall not withdraw any money from the policy at any time till the date of attainment of majority by the minor daughter. Even the petitioner wife as the guardian of the minor daughter shall not withdraw any money out of the policy till the majority of minor……..”

 

         The original policy was kept under the custody of Complainant No.2 being the natural guardian/mother of Ms.Navdha.  During Oct., 2015, when the complainant enquired about the latest fund value of the policy from the OPs, only then she came to know that the said insurance policy was already surrendered by Ripan Kumar in March, 2010 and the Fund Value thereof amounting to Rs.9,95,000/- was credited to his savings bank account by OPs.  The complainants have alleged that the copy of judgment/decree dated 4.4.2007 of Hon’ble District Judge, Chandigarh was duly supplied to the Manager of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No. 139-140, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 10.10.2007 (Ann.C-2), which was duly acknowledged by Sh.Anil Kumar Pandey Deputy Manager (Operations) of OPs Insurance Company on 17.11.2007. 

         The complainant took up the matter with S.S.P., Chandigarh, vide her letter dated 21.12.2015 (Ann.C-4) and accordingly, FIR NO.77, dated 3.3.2016 was lodged at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh against Ripan Kumar, under Section 420 & 406 of IPC (Ann.C-5), and he was arrested on & released on bail, but further no action was taken by the police against the accused despite her best efforts. 

         The complainants have prayed for a compensation of Rs.9.00 lacs on account of deficiency in service and mental agony & harassment, besides Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

2]       The notice was issued to the OPs, who appeared and filed their reply in rebuttal to the complaint.  It is stated that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint against OPs as the contract of insurance was entered into between Ripan Kumar (Father of complainant No.1) and the answering insurance company and since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs, thus, the complainants are not consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is also stated that Sh.Ripan Kumar being a prudent person himself proposed a “Unit Gain Plus” (Single Premium) policy for his daughter Navdha and proposed to pay a premium of Rs.8,00,000/- after understanding the features, benefits, risks, charges and other terms & conditions of the policy and accordingly, the policy was issued for basic sum assured for Rs.10.00 lacs.  It is further stated that no intimation with regard to proposing the policy on the order of Ld.Court was given to the answering OPs at the time of proposing the policy.  Further, Ripan Kumar, being the proposer, submitted application for the surrender of the policy vide surrender application dated 29.3.2010 and the surrender application was processed in normal course of business transaction and an amount of Rs.9,95,660/- was paid to Sh.Ripan Kumar (Father of life assured) as per terms & conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that the complainant submitted an application to enquire with regard to the policy in question and only then the answering OPs came to know with regard to the restraining order of Ld.District Judge dated 04.04.4007.  Further, the answering OPs after taking sanctions from the Head Office and the concerned department reinstated the policy with the fund value of Rs.18,75,153.59 and letter with regard to the same has already been sent to the complainant and the same has been restored to original status, as if it was never surrendered.  It is asserted that the restraining order dated 04.4.2007 was never brought to the notice of answering OPs either by said Mr.Ripan Kumar (Father of the Life Assured Ms.Navdha) or by the official who had allegedly received the restraining order.  Thus, in the absence of any knowledge to the effect of restraining orders, the said Mr.Ripan Kumar was fraudulently able to surrender the policy on the life of his daughter and as & when the fact of surrender of policy contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Distt. Judge was brought to the notice of the OPs, then immediate enquiry was made and the policy was reinstated to its original place.  The OPs have denied any deficiency in service on their part.   

 

3]       The complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the facts as alleged in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

          

5]       We have heard the complainant No.2 in person, ld.Counsel for OPs and have also examined entire evidence on record meticulously.

 

6]       The Judgment & Decree dated 4.4.2007 of Hon’ble District Judge, Chandigarh, in H.M.A.Case No.471 of 04.10.2006 titled as Rashmi and Ripan Kumar, under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act, was served upon Opposite Party No.2 through its Officer namely Sh.Anil Kumar Pandey, Deputy Manager (Operations), who duly acknowledged it by appending his signatures as well as stamp on 17.11.2007 (Ann.C-2).  The OPs have accordingly notified (Page NO.20) as under:-

“THE COMPANY IS IN RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE LIFE OF Ms.NAVIDHA BHANDULA D/O SH.RIPAN KUMAR AND HAS ISSUED A POLICY NO.0045906248.

THIS IS TO CLARIFY THAT NO FACILITY FOR ANY PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE POLICY TO ANYONE BEFORE Ms.NAVIDHA BHANDULA COMPLETES 18 YEARS OF AGE.

AFTER Ms.NAVIDHA BHANDULA ATTAINS AGE OF MAJORITY, THE POLICY WILL AUTOMATICALLY VEST IN HER AND ALL WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO HER ONLY AND NOBODY ELSE.”

 

It is obvious that the terms & conditions, as settled in the case and the directions of the Hon’ble Court were in the knowledge of the OPs.  It is astonishing to observe that despite the orders of Hon’ble District Judge, Chandigarh, the OPs paid a sum of Rs.9,95,000/- against the insurance policy bearing No.0045906248 to Ripan Kumar.  It is only after strenuous efforts made by the complainant No.2-Rashmi that the OPs have rectified their mistake and said policy was reinstated on 21.06.2016 (Ann.C-9) after six years.

 

7]       The OPs/Insurance Company was sole responsible to rule out any foul or fraud, especially when the beneficiary was minor, as in the present case.  Had the Complainant No.2/Smt.Rashmi was not vigilant and had not taken up steps to verify the facts from the Opposite Parties and had not followed up the matter, the minor beneficiary would have suffered a huge loss. 

 

8]       The complainant No.1-Navdha(minor) being the ultimate beneficiary and her Life insured in the said Life Insurance Policy and the complainant NO.2 being her natural guardian and mother are party to the settlement, thus are necessary parties and have every right to file the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, the objection of the OPs that the complainants are not consumers as envisage under The Consumer Protection Act, is not sustainable. 

 

9]       From the facts & circumstances, as brought out in the present case, the Opposite Parties are found grossly negligent in dealing with the Life Insurance Policy of the minor Navdha, which warrants stringent action.  The complainants have sufficiently proved on record the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with directions to OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs along with litigation expenses Rs.5,000/- to the complainants, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th November, 2016                                                                   Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

           (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER