Haryana

Sonipat

173/2013

RAJBALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.173 of 2013

                                Instituted on:29.03.2013

                                Date of order:06.04.2015

 

Raj Bala widow of Pale Ram son of Chander Singh Rathee, r/o village Purkhas, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.The Manager Bajaj Alliance c/o Manager Gurgaon Gram Bank.

2.Gurgaon Gramin Bank Sonepat through its Manager.

3.NIshant Tyagi Agent of Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co., the agent of respondent no.1.

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. AS Ruhil Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Jai Kanwar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh.Ajay Sehrawat, Adv. for respondent no.2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her husband was insured with the respondent vide Group policy no.123752028 under Swayam Surekha Policy for Rs.2,50,000/-, but he has died unfortunately on 9.6.2012. The said policy was renewed vide dated 1.6.2012 and after the death of her husband, the complainant intimated the respondents and requested for making the payment of claim amount.  But the respondents have not paid any heed to the request of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their separate written statement, whereas despite publication, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 and thus, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.3.2015.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.1 has already made the payment of permissible amount to the tune of Rs.16723/- vide cheque no.54435 dated 29.10.2012 to the master policy holder i.e. Gurgaon Gramin Bank towards the full and final payment of all the claims under the membership no.GGB038918 on the life of Pale Ram in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Group Master Policy no.0123752028. The risk cover under membership no.GGB038918 ceased to exist due to non payment of the premium.  Since the premium was not paid even within the period of grace, the life insurance cover had lapsed and benefit amount on death during the period of lapsation has been duly paid in accordance with group insurance scheme.  The complainant has filed a false and frivolous compliant to derive illegal financial gains contrary to the express and agreed terms and conditions of master policy administered by Gurgaon Gramin Bank.  As such, it cannot be said that there is  any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          In reply, the respondent no.2 has submitted that the deceased purchased the insurance policy from respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 has denied that the said policy was renewed vide acknowledgement dated 1.6.2012.  Infact the amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of deceased Pale Ram which was deposited by one Deepak and the amount of premium was debited form the account of Pale Ram on 29.6.2012 whereas the due date of premium was 17.3.2012.  The complainant deliberately after the death of deceased deposited the amount of premium.    The amount deposited was refunded to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy vide cheque no.054435 dated 29.10.2012 for Rs.16,723/-.  The claim of the complainant was rightly and legally repudiated by the respondent no.1 with the reason that the policy was inoperative as renewal premium was not paid and thus, prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed qua respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for both the parties we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       In the present case, the complainant has annexed two receipts i.e. Annexure C6 and C7 regarding payment of renewal installments to the respondent. 

             The respondent no.2 has placed on record the receipt dated 28.6.2012 to prove that the renewal premium of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the insurance company well within time.  As per the complainant, Rs.10,000/- were paid on 1.6.2012 to the agent of the insurance company.  But as per the rule, the renewal premium should have been submitted in the bank.  The bank has sent the information regarding the rejection of the policy on dat6ed 25.5.2012, 6.6.2012, 13.6.2012, 29.6.2012 and 5.7.2012.  The perusal of these documents placed on record by the respondent no.2 alongwith the affidavit shows that the bank has sent the information or deposited the renewal premium amount to the insurance company well within time.  The bare perusal of the statement of account dated 29.6.2012 itself shows that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the bank  to the insurance company.  The respondent no.2 has also placed on record a deposit slip of Rs.10,000/- in the account of Pale Ram and this amount was deposited by one Deepak on 28.6.2012 and bank has sent this amount to the insurance company on 29.6.2012.  As per the complainant they have paid the renewal installment premium amount to the agent on 1.6.2012 and again they have deposited Rs.10,000/- cash on 28.6.2012 against the renewal of policy Tarun Bima Yojna.  In our view, no body will pay the amount of premium installment twice against the single policy and this has been done by the complainant intentionally, malafide and in order to mislead the respondents.  In our view, by doing so, the complainant cannot get any relief against the respondents from this Forum.  Accordingly, we are of the view that the present complaint has no merit as the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Thus, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  06.04.2015