STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Amar Nath Bansal, Booth No.76, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh.

….…Appellant/Complainant

V E R S U S

Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., earlier at SCO No.139-140, Second Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

Present Address: SCO No.215-217, Sector 34, through its Branch Manager.

.…..Respondent/Opposite Party  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the respondent.  

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) with directions to the Opposite Party (now respondent) to pay the fund value of the units, on surrendering the Policy, without deducting any surrender charges, with no order as to compensation and costs.

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the agent of the Opposite Party, approached the complainant, for Life Insurance Policy. The said agent specifically told him that investment of Rs.10,000/- per year, would fetch Rs.45,000/-, after the expiry of three years. The complainant paid the regular installments of premium, for three years and, thereafter, he approached the Opposite Party for enquiring about the amount due. It was stated that the Opposite Party told him that he would get Rs.19,877/- only.  It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, if the premiums were paid for three years, then no surrender charges would be applicable, but the Opposite Party did not adhere to the said terms and conditions.  It was further stated that the complainant wrote various letters dated 2.6.2008, 17.6.2009 and 10.12.2009 to the Opposite Party, but to no avail. The complainant personally visited the office of the Opposite Party, but till date, no amount was refunded to him. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party admitted that the Policy, in question, was issued in the name of the complainant.  It was stated that the Policy (Unit Gain) was directly connected with the share market. It was further stated that because of economic melt down, in the International market, the price of the units issued to the complainant, under the Policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that the Policy was issued, on the basis of proposal form, filled in and signed by the complainant, and he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the Policy, if the terms thereof were not acceptable to him, but he failed to do so. It was denied that any request was received from the complainant. It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum overlooked the written arguments filed by the complainant, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that the Opposite Party had not invested the remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- out of the premium paid for the first year inspite of mention in the proposal form that fund apportionment for unit linked was 100% and the same amounted to deficiency, in service, and unfair trade practice on its part. He further submitted that Annexure A-2 was a computer generated document without attestation by any Company official and, thus, the same could not be relied upon. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

9.                                          On other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party submitted that the Policy (Unit Gain) was directly connected with the share market. It was further submitted that because of economic melt down, in the International market, the price of the units, issued to the complainant, under the Policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of the Opposite Party. He further submitted that the Policy was issued, on the basis of proposal form, filled in, and signed by the complainant, and he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the Policy, if the terms thereof were not acceptable to him, but he did not opt for the same. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal,  is liable to be upheld.

10.                 Admittedly, the Policy, in question, was a unit linked Policy, subject to market risks, which was issued to the complainant, on the basis of duly filled in and signed proposal form. It is an admitted fact, that the complainant received the terms and conditions of the Policy.  The grouse of the Counsel for the complainant, is that inspite of mention of 100% allocation, in the proposal form, the Opposite Party invested only a sum of Rs.3,000/- out of Rs.10,000/- paid towards the first premium, and retained the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-. Clause 6.2 i.e. Premium Allocation of the Insurance Policy is reproduced as under:-

“The nominal value of the units is Rs.10/- each. Units are allocated to the Policy dependency on the amount of premium paid, the allocation rate as set out in Table 1 and prevailing offer price of each unit. Such allocations may be made upto 1/10000th of Unit or such other fraction as the company may decide from time to time

It is evident from the above Clause that the rate of allocation for the first Policy year was 30% and, accordingly, the Opposite Party invested Rs.3,000/- (i.e. 30% of the first premium amount) and the same was also mentioned in the unit statement (Annexure A-2) sent to the complainant, and, as such, he had no right to raise this objection, at this stage. Had the complainant been not satisfied with the allocation rate, for the first policy year, he had an opportunity to exercise the option during the free look period, as mentioned in the welcome letter dated 20.09.2005, produced by him before the District Forum, which he failed to exercise.  We are, thus, of the considered view that the Opposite Party rightly invested the amount as per the allocation rate as mentioned in Clause 6.2 of the Policy terms. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that the Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. Similar view was taken by this Commission in the F.A. No.191/2011 titled as Ramesh Kumar Bamal Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. and another decided on 02.08.2011. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.                 The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,  with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

03.09.2012                     [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                              [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg