Haryana

Kurukshetra

178/2017

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

Sultan Singh

17 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.178 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution:25.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:17.05.2018.

Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Kali Ram, resident of House No.723, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, now resident of House No.1821, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.271, Industrial Area, Panchkula, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, through its Managing Director.
3. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.53, IInd Floor, near blood bank, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Sultan Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Atul Mittal, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanjay Kumar against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got insured his daughter namely Darishti Rani with the Ops vide policy No.0209732374 on 17.03.2011 for a period of seven years for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is alleged that the daughter of complainant died on 13.01.2017 prior to the maturity of the said insurance policy.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops only paid the amount of Rs.40,077.33 paise and remaining amount of the policy was declined by the Ops on the ground that the deceased does not fall under the said policy because her date of birth in the policy has been mentioned as 04.10.2010.  In fact, it was a clerical mistake and the actual date of birth of Daristi was 04.10.2009 and the same has been mentioned in the birth certificate.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay the full amount of policy in question alongwith bonus to the complainant and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the policy bearing No.0327501062 was issued on the life of Mr. Sanjay Kumar strictly in accordance with the proposal form dt. 29.02.2016 submitted by the complainant duly signed wherein he himself made a declaration that he signed the said proposal form after having understood the contents thereof.  Thus, the complainant himself had opted for a benefit term of 25 years and premium payment term of 15 years without any coercion or force and the policy was issued with date of commencement as 02.03.2016 and date of maturity as 02.03.2041.  Thus, neither any maturity claim has been fallen due nor has the policy acquired any paid up value/surrender value as per the terms of the policy document, which is still in his custody.  The complainant has not even made any request for early termination value under the policy as per the terms of the contract; that the complainant was offered 15 days “Free Look Cancellation Period” from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract as per the Policy Holders’ Protections Regulation, 2002 and if he was dissatisfied with the said terms and conditions of the policy, he would have given written notice to the Ops to cancel the policy within the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy bond; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             It is contended by the ld. counsel for complainant that in fact the date of birth of the minor child is 04.10.2009, whereas it is mentioned in the policy as 04.10.2010.  The contention of ld. counsel for the Ops is that as per policy papers, the date of birth of minor Darishti Rani is in fact mentioned as 04.10.2010. 

7.             It is contended by ld. counsel for the complainant that if we consider the date of birth of minor Darishti as 04.10.2009, then the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the amount of Rs.40,070/- has wrongly been given to the complainant from the perusal of papers, it is made out that the date of birth of Darishti Rani as per Ex.C7 is 04.10.2009.  Even if it is considered that in the policy papers, the date of birth of Darishti Rani is mentioned as 04.10.2010, this Forum can take a notice that the policy papers are not always filled up by the complainant.  So, we consider the date of birth of Darishti Rani as 04.10.2009 and as such, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which Rs.40,070/- has already been paid by the Ops to the complainant and as such, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- less Rs.40,070/-=Rs.59,930/-.

8.             Thus, in these circumstances, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs.59,930/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within two months, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the above-said amount of Rs.59,930/- from the date of order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  A copy of said order; be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:17.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member