Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1013/2015

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianze Life Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amrik Singh Dullat

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1013

                                                Instituted on:    08.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.06.2016

 

Jagjit Singh son of Dhan Ram, resident of Sundar Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. FCI Building, Near BSNL Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune (Maharashtra) through its General Manager.

3.     Veerbhan Singh (agent) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, FCI Building, Near BSNL Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Advocate.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.

For OPs No.3            :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the assurance of the OPs number 2 and 3 the complainant  invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and signed certain blank printed forms and the OP number 3 only issued a receipt, but nothing was issued except that.  It is further averred in the complaint that when one representative of the Ops number 1 and 2 visited the house of the complainant on 6.2.2015 and asked to deposit the more amount with the company, then it came to the knowledge of the OP that the amount has been invested by the OPs under the plan Bajaj Allianz Smart Insurance Plan III and policy number 0309777457 dated 21.1.2014 has been issued. It is further averred that the complainant deposited the amount as single investment for three years fixed deposit and as such the amount will be returned after three years along with the benefits. It is further averred that no terms and conditions have been issued to the complainant.  It is further averred that the complainant approached the office of OP number 1 to refund the above said amount along with interest and made application dated 9.6.2015, but the Ops refused to make the refund of the payment. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of issuance of the policy till its realisation and further prayed for payment of  compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections on the grounds are taken up  that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the complainant himself out of his free will purchased the Bajaj Allianz Regular Premium Unit Linked Smart Insurance Plan III  with an intent to earn profit was issued, that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the Ops as neither any claim has fallen due nor any amount is payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There is a lock in period of five years from the date of commencement of the policy i.e. 20.01.2014 as per terms and conditions of the policy, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, that the complainant himself submitted a proposal form dated 16.12.2013 duly signed by him in English and the proposal was accepted by the OPs and the OPs issued the policy for the terms of six years and benefit term of 10 years. It is further averred that the policy in question was duly despatched to the complainant vide speed post number ED2996171051N dated 4.2.2014 which was duly received by the complainant, that the complainant has deliberately concealed the true and correct facts just to mislead the Forum. It is stated further that the complainant approached the OPs for the first time after one and half years of the issue of the policy and a suitable reply was sent to the complainant.  It is stated further that the complainant has cocked up a false story of non receipt of the policy. It is further averred that the complainant was required to pay the yearly premium of Rs.5,00,000/- respectively for premium payment term of six years without any obligation on the OPs to issue any notice thereof, but he failed to discharge his contractual obligation under the policy knowing well that the policy would lapse.   On merits, it is stated that the OP number 3 is the IRDA approved agent of the OPs through whom the complainant himself purchased an insurance policy having premium of Rs.5,00,000/- for the terms of six years and benefit term of 10 years. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the OPs as proposed in the normal course of insurance policy and policy was issued with the commencement date as 20.01.2014, which was also despatched vide speed post dated 4.2.2014. This fact has been deliberately concealed by the complainant.  It is denied that the complainant has not received the policy in question from the OPs.  It is further stated that the policy in question has a lock in period of five years as per the provision of the IRDA treatment of Lapsed Unit Linked Policies Regulation, 2010 and no claim has fallen due under the policy as per the contract.  Even the surrender value under the policy is payable only after the expiry of the lock in period of five years.

 

3.             Record shows that the Opposite parties number 3 was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application dated 9.6.2015, Ex.C-2 copy of complaint, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt of application, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of ID proof, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of financial report, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of ITR, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of AY 20 form, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of cheque dated 16.12.2013, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of moral hazard report, Ex.Op1&2/8 copy of letter dated 11.1.2016, Ex.Op1&2/9 copy of regular premium schedule, Ex.Op1&2/10 copy of receipt, Ex.Op1&2/11 copy of company’s grievance report, Ex.Op1&2/12 copy of letter dated 8.7.2015, Ex.Op1&2/13 copy of track result, Ex.Op1&2/14 affidavit, Ex.Op1&2/15 copy of policy and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained an insurance policy under the Plan Bajaj Allianz Smart Insurance Plan III Regular premium vide policy number 0309777457 dated 21.1.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as policy premium.      But, the grievance of the complainant is that he has invested the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as one time investment, which was to be returned after a period of three years along with the benefits, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops only came to know on 6.2.2015, when the representative of the Ops number 1 and 2 visited the house of the complainant to deposit the second instalment of premium with the company, whereas the complainant had invested the amount as a single premium policy with the Ops, which was refundable after a period of three years. As such, the complainant has sought the cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount thereof.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the policy was purchased by the complainant after fully understanding the same and that the policy in question was sent to the complainant vide speed post number ED2996171051A dated 4.2.2014, but the complainant only approached the OP after one and half years i.e. on 8.7.2015 for cancellation of the policy in question.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents, we find that in the present case the policy issued to the complainant has been lapsed and in para number 6 of the reply of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the present fund value as per discontinuation clause is Rs.487014/- (which is subject to change) though the amount transferred into discontinued fund was Rs.463644/- as on 12.4.2015 and the policy in question would continue to earn on the discontinued fund as per the terms and conditions of the policy subject to permissible deduction. There is no option to withdraw the discontinue fund below expiry of five years from commencement of policy, thus, the instant complaint is without any merit and has been filed to withdraw the amount contrary to the IRDA regulations. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have  But, we may mention here that the case of the complainant is that he was never issued any policy nor its terms and conditions were ever communicated to him, as such, the terms and conditions of the policy, if any are not binding on the complainant, as the same were never communicated to him.  We have also perused the copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP1&2/15, but it nowhere contains the signatures of the complainant showing that the same were ever communicated to him.  Further the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the policy in question was actually delivered to the complainant, more so when the complainant has denied having received the policy or its terms and conditions. As such, we feel that this argument of the Ops falls flat that the terms and conditions of the policy were ever communicated to him.  As such, we feel that it is clear from the own record of the Ops that an amount of Rs.4,87,014/- pertaining to the complainant was lying in the discontinued fund of the OPs as on 12.4.2015. We further feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,87,014/- to the complainant, which was not refunded to the complainant intentionally by the Ops.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,87,014/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 12.4.2015 till realisation in full. We further direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 6, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member