Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/923/2011

Gurbir Singh S/o Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dinesh Sharma

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 923 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 30.08.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 11.01.2017

Gurbir Singh aged about 31 years son of late S. Surinder Singh, resident of 1333A, Ward No.9, Yamuna Gali, Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. branch at Ganpati Building, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza Ground Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, through its M.D. 

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

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

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents    

           

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant Gurbir Singh 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 the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 0100259952  named Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold on payment of Rs. 12,000/- per annum for three years. The complainant deposited first installment of Rs. 12,000/- on 03.06.2008, 2^nd installment of Rs. 12,000/- on 03.06.2009 and 3^rd and final installment of Rs. 12,000/- on 03.06.2010 with the Op No.1 against receipt. Thus, the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs. 36,000/- with OP Insurance Company. As per terms and conditions as told to the complainant, he wished to get the amount after expiry of this three years period but the OPs after considering the market position, calculated an amount of Rs. 32,386/- payable to the complainant, to which the complainant got agreed. Thereafter, in the first week of June, 2011 when the complainant approached the Op No.1 for collecting the abovesaid amount as full and final consideration, the OP No.1 disclosed that from the abovesaid amount of Rs. 32386/- further a sum of Rs. 5830/- will also be deducted by the company. This act of the OPs is absolutely in utter violation of the instructions of SEBI as well as RBI and the OPs have absolutely no right to deduct any such further amount from the total settled amount of Rs. 32,386/- because as per norms, the OPs are liable to make refund of the whole amount of Rs. 36,000/- deposited by the complainant during the period of 3 years as detailed above alongwith accrued interest upto date to the complainant but the OPs failed to do so, hence, the complainant sent a registered AD legal notice on 16.06.2001 to the OPs but in spite of receipt thereof, the OPs have not complied with the terms of the said notice till date. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs. 32,386/- alongwith up to date interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has neither made any request for surrender value under the policy in question nor did he ever submit the mandatory requirements for surrender value under the policy, hence, the complaint is hopelessly pre-mature and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint;. no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint. The policy in question was issued to the complainant with the date of commencement as 03.06.2008 and the instant complaint has been filed after expiry of more than 3 ½ years challenging the terms and conditions of the policy; thus the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per provisions of 24-A of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is estopped to file the instant application due to his own act and conduct as he out of his free will after fully understanding the benefits, features, charges and terms and conditions of Bajaj Allianz Unit Linked Regular Premium “ Unit Gain Plus Gold” plan, proposed for the said policy and opted to pay yearly regular premium @ Rs. 12,000/- for a period of 20 years in the proposal for insurance dated 30.05.2008. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the OPs Insurance Company and a policy bearing No. 0100259952 was issued to the complainant and the original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was  dispatched to him. The receipt of policy bond was never disputed by the complainant and paid renewal premiums due on 03.06.2009 and 03.06.2010 as stipulated in the schedule of the policy bond received by him and enjoyed the risk cover of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The complainant was however, given 15 days free look cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the policy and to make a written request for cancellation of policy with return of original policy document, if he was dissatisfied with it but he neither raised any objection w.r.t the terms and conditions of the policy not did he submit any written request with in the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy bond which clearly indicates that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and a story has been concocted by the complainant after expiry of more than 3 years of receipt of policy document just to mislead this Forum to derive illegal benefits under the policy at this belated staged.  The complainant has failed to discharge his contractual obligation and did not pay the regular yearly premium @ Rs. 12000/- due 03.06.2011 and onwards. However, the policy has been kept in force for full sum assured as per the clause 5(1)( c) of the terms and conditions of the policy bond which is in the custody of the complainant. Further the surrender value under the policy if any, is payable only after first 3 policy years provided all regular premiums due for first 3 policy years have been paid and the surrender value would be equal to regular premium fund value less surrender charges. The policy terms and conditions under heading “ Surrender Value & Surrender Charges” may kindly be referred to and the complainant be directed to produce the original policy bond. On merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order dated 21.01.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant tendered Photocopy of legal notice as Annexure-1 and 2,Photo copy of postal receipt and acknowledgement as Annexure-3 in support of his complaint.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shalini Guglani, Divisional Operation Head, as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photocopy of proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter alongwith terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Annexure R-2Photo copy of premium receipt as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of detail of IFSC Number, account number, adhaar number and PAN number as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of surrender- Partial withdrawal form as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy “Unit Gain Plus Gold bearing No. 0100259952 on 03.06.2008 and paid Rs. 12,000/- to the OPs. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid three installments regularly of Rs. 12,000/- each to the OPs during the first three policy years. The only version of the complainant is that the complainant wished to get the amount after expiry of three years period but the Ops after considering the market position, calculated an amount of Rs. 32,386/- payable to the complainant  but when the complainant approached the Op No.1 to collect the aforesaid amount as full and final the OP No.1 disclosed that further a sum of Rs. 5830/- will also be deducted by the company which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of OPs in utter violation of the instructions of SEBI as well as RBI. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs. 32,386/- alongwith up to date interest.

8                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 20 years but the complainant paid only three yearly installment of Rs. 12,000/- each and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant himself out of his free will submitted a request for surrender value during the pendency of the complaint before this Forum on 13.11.2014 and his request for surrender value was processed by the company in the normal course of insurance business and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 41585/- was calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy document submitted by the complainant at the time of surrendering the policy and the said amount of Rs. 41585/- was credited to the Syndicate Bank Account No. 82862010005473 vide UTR No. SIN00101Q7395030 dated 18.11.2014 and draw our attention towards the para No.3 of the affidavit (Annexure RW/A) in which it was so recorded. The complainant has already received the full and final surrendered value claim under the policy without any protest. Thus, the OPs 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 Unit Gain Plus Gold just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Narinder Kaur & Others Versus 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 prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     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. From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R-1 bearing No. 0100259952 dated 03.06.2008, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Plus Gold in his name issued by the Ops in the year 2008. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (NC) and Narinder Kaur & Others Versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

10.                   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.

11.                   Further, the complainant has received the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 41585/- which stands already credited to his Syndicate Bank account No. 82862010005473 on 18.11.2014 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 which is evident from para No.3 of affidavit (Annexure RW/A). It means the OPs have discharged its contractual obligations under the policy in question.

12.                   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.

13.                   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: 11.01.2017

                                       (S.C.SHARMA )                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                        MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT.