Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/77/2014

Gurupjit singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Gs Virk

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  03/06/2014                                                       Date of decision   :  23.09.2015

Gurupjit Singh Nagra minor aged about 8 years son of Sh. Gursharanjit Singh Nagra through his father Gursharanjit Singh Nagra                             ( Nominee/beneficiary with respect to policy No.0024838756) R/o near Aam Khas Bagh, Bassi Road Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its authorized officer/Manager, GE Plaza Airport Road Yarwada, Pune ( Maharashtra).
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Chhoti Barandri, Patiala.
3. Ashutosh Sharma C/o Life Insurance Agent Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. FSC/IC Code 2300001029 C/o Branch Office Patiala.

…..Opposite parties

       

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President       

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. G.S.Virk, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.             

                 Sh. M.L.Singhi, Adv.Cl. for  OPs No. 1&2.          

                OP No.3 exparte.              

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Gurupjit Singh, minor, through his father Sh. Gursharanjit Singh Nagra (Nominee/beneficiary with respect to policy No.0024838756) R/o near Aam Khas Bagh, Bassi Road Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               Mr. Gurupjit Singh Nagra, minor, is holding a insurance policy bearing No.0024838756 of Opposite party No.1 and 2 for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which commenced on 08.08.2006 and the annual premium was Rs.11,654/-. Five installments of Rs.11,654/- each were paid regularly through opposite party No.3, who issued only 3 receipts to the complainant but the last two receipts were retained by him for the reason to check the non-payment of amount. The complainant surprised and shocked when he came to know regarding non-renewal of the said premium and regarding termination of the policy. The opposite parties were requested so many times to pay total amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest but they did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant and put off the matter on one pretext or the other and opposite parties have terminated the policy of complainant illegally and forcibly without any reasonable cause. In the month of January 2014, OP No.2 brutally refused to pay back the amount paid of Rs.60,000/- along with interest or continue the policy of the complainant and told that the case of the complainant was non-genuine and based on the false facts. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000/-, as claim amount along with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment( mentally, physically and emotionally) suffered by the complainant.

3.               Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties, but Opposite party No.3 choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

3.               The complaint is contested by opposite parties No.1 & 2, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they stated that Mr. Gursharanjit Singh Nagra being a prudent person proposed for the Regular Premium Non Linked “Child Gain” policy on the life of his minor son Gurupjit Singh after fully understanding the feature, benefits & terms and conditions thereof and submitted the proposal form dated 08.08.2006 duly signed in English language. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the OPs as proposed and a policy in question was issued to him and the original policy bond containing express terms and conditions of the insurance contract was admittedly received by the complainant. The complainant being fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance paid renewal premiums for 2^nd and 3^rd policy years without ever disputing the terms and conditions. The complainant however failed to pay the yearly premiums due on 08.08.2009 and onwards knowing well that the policy would lapse for all risk covers and rider benefits. It is further stated that  no claim has fallen due under the policy in question as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. The policy in question was issued strictly in accordance with the proposal form duly signed in English language with date of commencement as 08.08.2006 and date of maturity as 08.08.2027. Thus, neither any maturity claim has fallen due nor has the complainant submitted any request for permissible surrender value under the policy. The complainant did not pay yearly premiums due on 08.08.2009 and onwards despite the yearly regular premiums were stipulated to be paid as per the schedule of the policy document. Thus, the policy in question lapsed w.e.f. 08.08.2009 due to non payment of regular premiums. Though revival period of 5 years was available to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the contract yet the complainant did not make any effort to get the policy revived within the said revival period, which stands expired on 08.08.2014. It is further stated that the agents have no express or implied authority to collect the renewal premiums on behalf of insurance company and they are not liable for any unauthorized and private transactions between the complainant and the agent i.e. OP No.3. Any lapse on the part of the complainant to pay the regular premiums disentitles him the benefits of risk cover and other benefits under the policy. It is further stated that the policy is still in book as reduced paid up policy and the complainant may avail the permissible surrender value as per the terms & conditions of the policy based on the premiums paid or the policy may continue as reduced paid policy, the reduced paid amount would be payable to the minor child upon attaining his majority. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of policy Ex. C-1, copy of payment of premium receipts Ex. C-2 & C-3, legal notice Ex. C-4, original postal receipts Ex. C-5, his affidavit Ex. C-6 and affidavit of Vishal Sharma Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs  No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Ex. OP1/1,  true copies of regular premium schedule Ex. OP1/2, detail of first premium receipt Ex. OP1/3, renewal reminder sheet Ex. OP1/4, details of the redresses mechanism Ex. OP1/5, terms and conditions and other relevant material of the policy Ex. OP1/6, letter dated 05.09.2014 Ex. OP1/7, letter dated 11.08.2006 Ex. OP1/8, details of the benefits OP1/9, letter from father of the complainant Ex. OP1/10, proposal form Ex. OP1/11 and closed the evidence.

5.               The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is evident from the statement of Vishal Sharma i.e Ex.C-7 and the relevant part of the statement is “ Para 5. That complainant regularly deposited five installments of Rs.11,654/-per year through opposite party No.3, who issued receipts to the complainant. The deponent remained present at the time of giving installments by the complainant to the OP No.3 at Fatehgarh Sahib.  Para 8. That opposite parties auto-fore closer the policy of complainant without any reasonable cause, illegally and forcibly without consent and hearing of complainant for which opposite parties have no right to do so”. The ld. counsel further submitted that it is well established from the aforesaid statement of Vishal Sharma that the complainant through his nominee had been regularly paying the premiums. The ld. counsel pleaded that it was the duty of the OPs to inquire and find out the real facts, which they failed to do so. The ld. counsel argued that his complaint deserves to be accepted as the negligence on the part of the OPs had been proved from the Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. He further argued that the policy lapsed due to the act and conduct of the OP No.3,  who was the agent and representative of the OPs.

6.               On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 has submitted that the OPs are not responsible for the act and conduct of the agent i.e OP No.3. He stated that the agents have no express or implied authority to collect the renewal premiums on behalf of insurance company and they are not liable for any unauthorized and private transactions between the complainant and the agent i.e. OP No.3. The ld. counsel pleaded that if the OP No.3 committed fraud with the complainant then the complainant should have taken appropriate steps against him and paid the premium. The ld. counsel argued that policy lapsed due to the failure on the part of the complainant and the OPs cannot be held liable for the same.

7.               After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we are of the view that fraud has been committed with the complainant. As per the statement of Vishal Sharma Ex.C-7 payment was made to the OP No.3, but it is not known whether the OP No.3 further deposited the same with OPs No.1 and 2. We feel the present case cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary manner. Recently the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport,2015(3) CLT 415(PB) has observed that “ where the matter cannot be adjudicated without recording elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses, the complainant be directed to approach competent civil court to seek redressal of her grievance”. We may further in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC), in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum.

8.                   Accordingly in view of the aforementioned discussion and the judgment, we are of the opinion that in the present case also elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses is required for proper adjudication of the case. Thus, we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to either accept the surrender value, to continue the Policy or may approach the appropriate Court of law, in case he wishes to prove or lead voluminous evidence and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  

9.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:23.09.2015                                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                             

                                                                                       President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)    

Member