DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.130 of 26-03-2013
Decided on 09-07-2013
Ajmer Singh, aged about 55 years S/o Sewa Singh R/o H.No.20155, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Parinda Road, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., Airport Road, Pune (Maharashtra), through its CEO.
2.Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., Area/Divisional Office, Second Floor, above ICICI Bank, opposite Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sukhpal Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.M.L Bansal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In the instant complaint the complainant has purchased the life insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 for the period from 14.6.2008 to 14.6.2018 against the yearly premium of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party No.2 on 13.6.2008 against receipt and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite parties and policy bearing No.0101102403 was issued to him by the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 8.5.2009 as the premium for the year 2009 and further paid Rs.25,000/- on 30.6.2010 for the year 2010. The complainant purchased another life insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 for the period from 17.9.2008 to 17.9.2018 against yearly premium of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party No.2 on 10.9.2008 and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite parties and policy bearing No.0108269177 was issued to him by the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant paid
Rs.20,000/- on 30.9.2009 the premium for the year 2009 and further paid Rs.20,000/- on 6.10.2010 as premium for the year 2010. As the complainant was in need of money, he surrendered the abovesaid policies. The complainant fulfilled all the necessary formalities as required by the opposite parties for the surrender of the said policies and he surrendered the original insurance policies to them. The complainant alleged that on the surrender of the said policies he was entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him on account of yearly premium alongwith due interest, whereas the opposite parties have returned Rs.65,735.67 against the policy bearing No.0101102403 and Rs.47,003.57 against the policy bearing No.0108269177 in the way the opposite parties have paid less amount than due against both the policies. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested it to pay the amount of premium alongwith upto date interest in the said insurance policies but it refused to entertain him. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of the premiums paid by him in both the policies alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of payment till its actual realization besides cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the performance of underlying funds in unit account of the unit linked policies is dependent on the market and other conditions. Thus, the fund value under the policies may increase or decrease depending on the market and other conditions. The question of refund of the premiums with interest does not arise at all under the unit linked policies as alleged by the complainant. The complainant admittedly requested for the surrender value under the said policies and the opposite parties have already paid the permissible surrender value strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said policies. The relevant clauses of the policy bonds under the heading 'Surrender Value' are as under:-
'Policy No.0101002403:
Surrender Value:
1) The surrender value, if any, is payable only after first three policy years.
2) The surrender value payable will be equal to the Regular Premium Fund Value less the Surrender Charge as per Section 33) g) plus Top Up Premium Fund Value, if any.
Surrender Charges:
The Surrender Charge will be as follows:
[1-(1/1.10) N]* First Years' Annualized Premium.
Where N is 5 years less the elapsed policy duration in years and any fraction thereof as on date of surrender or termination. This charge is applied during the first 5 Policy Years only.
Policy No.0108269177:
Surrender Value
i) From the fourth Policy year, provided all due Regular Premiums for first three Policy Years have been paid, the Policyholder may, at any time, surrender the Policy.
ii) The Surrender Value payable, if any, will be equal to the Regular Premium Fund Value plus the Top Up Premium Fund Value, if any, based on the Unit Price as on date of termination of the Policy'.
The opposite parties have calculated and paid the permissible surrender value to the complainant in terms of the above conditions of the said policies, thus the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merit. The complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct as he encashed the cheques Nos.20024 dated 7.3.2013 and 19130 dated 7.3.2012 for Rs.65,372/- and Rs.46,840/- respectively without any protest knowing well that he had received the full & final claim under the said policies in accordance with the contracts of the insurance. The surrender value under both the policies is calculated as under:-
The fund value in policy bearing No.101102403 is Rs.66250.61; surrender penalty:-Rs.782.5; service tax:-Rs.96.717 and the amount paid to the customer is Rs.65,371.393. In policy bearing No.108269177 the fund value is calculated to the tune of Rs.46840.48, no charges deducted on account of surrender penalty and service tax and the amount paid to the customer is Rs.46,840.48/-.
The complainant being a prudent person after fully understanding the Investment Risks, Benefits, Features, Charges & terms and conditions of the Unit Linked regular premium 'Century Plus' and 'Fortune Plus' policies filled the proposal forms dated 11.6.2008 and 10.9.2008 respectively and submitted the said proposal forms duly signed by him in English Language. The proposal forms of the complainant were accepted as such by the opposite parties and the policies in question bearing Nos.101102403 and 108269177 were issued to him. The original policy documents containing express terms and conditions of the contracts of the insurance were admittedly received by the complainant and no assurance was made by the opposite parties to pay the premium amount with interest at the time of surrender to the complainant. The opposite parties have acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the permissible surrender value in the terms of the contract stands admittedly received by the complainant. The complainant never disputed the terms and conditions of the said policies. The complainant did not pay the regular annual premium w.e.f. 14.6.2011, as stipulated in the schedule of the policy bond. Thus, the complainant paid 3 annual premiums in total and enjoyed the risk cover of Rs.1,25,000/- till the surrender of the said policy. The annual premium due on 17.9.2011 and onwards were not paid by the complainant under the policy bearing No.108269177.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant had purchased two life insurance policies bearing Nos.101102403 and 108269177 from the opposite party No.1. The period of the first policy was from 14.6.2008 to 14.6.2018 against the annual premium of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant paid the first premium of Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party No.2 on 13.6.2008 and thereafter he paid Rs.25,000/- on 8.5.2009 and further paid Rs.25,000/- on 30.6.2010. The period of second policy was from 17.9.2008 to 17.9.2018 against annual premium of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party No.2 on 10.9.2008; Rs.20,000/- on 30.9.2009 and Rs.20,000/- on 6.10.2010. The complainant surrendered both the policies and as per his request the amount of Rs.65,735.67 against policy bearing No.0101102403 and Rs.47,003.57 against the policy bearing No.0108269177 vide cheques bearing Nos.20024 and 19130 dated 7.3.2012 respectively was paid to the complainant.
6. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant was entitled for the refund of total amount paid by him on account of yearly premiums alongwith due interest and opposite parties have paid less amount to the complainant.
7. The submission of the opposite parties is that on the request of the surrender of both the policies, the surrender value has been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. At the time of receiving the surrender value the complainant has never lodged any protest to the opposite parties that the less amount has been paid to him.
8. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has surrendered the original insurance policies after paying three annual premiums in both the abovesaid policies, his request was processed and the surrender value under both the policies bearing Nos.101102403 and 108269177 was sent to the complainant vide cheques Nos.20024 dated 7.3.2013 and 19130 dated 7.3.2012 for Rs.65,372/- and Rs.46,840/- respectively. The details of the surrender value has been calculated as per terms and conditions of the abovesaid policies. The complainant has encashed the cheques and has never lodged any protest with the opposite parties. A perusal of record placed on file also shows that even no protest letter has been written by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding the payment of less amount. The surrender value has been paid to the complainant as per the terms & conditions of policies mentioned in the abovesaid chart. Moreover if the complainant was not satisfied with the amount refunded to him, he should have immediately lodged the protest with the opposite parties but no such effort has been done on the part of the complainant in this regard. The present complaint is an afterthought as it has been filed approximately after one year after receiving the amount in both the policies. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled Shree Balaji Woolen Mills Vs.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I CPJ 366 (NC) 2013 wherein it has been held:-
“Full and final settlement-Cheque accepted without protest-Discharge voucher signed-Claim settled.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-Insurance-Full and final settlement-Cheque accepted without protest-Alleged coercion-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-Petitioner himself has voluntarily initiated process of settlement of claim-Discharge voucher signed by petitioner and received cheque without protest-It cannot be said that he was coerced or compelled by Insurance Company to settle his claims-State Commission rightly concluded that petitioner has voluntarily accepted cheque in full and final settlement of his claims.”
Further the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled M.L Kathuria Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., II (2013) CPJ 586 (NC) wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-Insurance-Full and final settlement-Cheque accepted without protest-Alleged coercion-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-Once party accepts payment as full and final satisfaction without any protest, party cannot put forward claim before Consumer Fora-Complainant had accepted Rs.3,10,000/- while accepting the claim voluntarily and without any coercion exercised upon him-No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in impugned order.”
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above and in the light of precedent laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in above mentioned cases there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
09-07-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
