DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:159 of 2011] Date of Institution : 06.04.2011 Date of Decision :31.05.2012 --------------------------------------- Smt. Kamlesh Kaur wife of Sh. Jasbir Singh resident of House No.177-B, Amrawati Enclave, Post Office Chandimandir, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. ---Complainant. VERSUS Bajaj Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-II, SCO No.215-217, 4th Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Nonefor the complainant. Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Smt. Kamlesh Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following directions to the OP:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with interest 24% per annum calculated by half yearly rest from 30.10.2009; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation; 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of April 2006, some official of OP approached her and allured her to purchase a product of Bajaj Life Insurance Company Limited known as “Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain” and get her life assured for a sum of Rs.2 Lacs on payment of a premium of Rs.10,000/- per annum for 10 years. The case of the complainant is that the said official of the OP represented her that after payment of three premiums of Rs.10,000/- each, she will get at least Rs.45,000/-. So, according to the complainant, on the basis of the representation made by the employee of OP, she purchased the said policy and filled the proposal form. She also paid a premium of Rs.10,000/- at the time of filling of the proposal form. According to the complainant, she received the policy and thereafter, she paid two more premiums on 24.10.2007 and 13.09.2008 vide receipts (Annexures C-2 and C-3 respectively). It has further been pleaded that as the complainant did not want to continue with the policy. So, she made a request for surrender of the policy in the month of October 2009. She was shocked to receive a cheque of Rs.20,000/- only. According to the complainant, as per the assurances given by the employee of the OP, she was to get at least Rs.45,000/-. But in fact, she was paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- only, which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP, it has been admitted that on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant, the policy known as “Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain” was issued in favour of the complainant. As per this policy, the sum assured on the life of the complainant was Rs.2 Lacs. She was required to pay premium amounting to Rs.10,000/- only for 10 years. It has been admitted that the complainant paid three premiums of Rs.10,000/- each. The case of the OP is that the policy in question is Unit Linked Policy and its value decreased or increased as per the market fluctuation. The case of the OP is that in October 2009, a request for surrender of the policy was received. So, her case was processed and as per the market rate, the NAV was 15.59222. So, the amount of Rs.21,300/- was sent to the complainant vide cheque No.444958 dated 04.02.2010, which was duly accepted by her and was got encashed. It has been specifically pleaded by the OP that the official of the OP did not represent to her that the minimum amount payable to the complainant after three years would be Rs.45,000/-. It has further been pleaded that at the time of issuance of the policy in question, the complainant was given an option that in case she was not in agreement with the terms and conditions of the policy, she could opt for cancellation of the policy within a period of 15 days but no such option was exercised by her. In these circumstances, according to the OP, the complainant agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, according to the OP, the amount has been paid to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. So, the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. On the date of final hearing i.e.30.05.2012, none appeared on behalf of the complainant. We, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents placed on record. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant proposed to purchase the policy known as “Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain” and paid a premium of Rs.10,000/-. On the basis of it, Policy No.0028619248 was issued to her and she received the said policy. The policy contains all the terms and conditions. As such, the complainant became aware of all the terms and conditions of the policy on the receipt of the said policy. The mere fact that the option for cancellation of the policy within 15 days was not exercised by the complainant leads to an inference that she was in agreement with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the complainant paid three premiums of Rs.10,000/- each. 7. Sub Clause (c) of Clause 31 of the terms and conditions of the policy reads as under: - “(c) Surrender i) The Surrender Value of the Policy will be equal to the Fund Value less Surrender Charge, if any, as per Section 25(h). the Company shall thereafter terminate the policy upon payment of the full Surrender Value. ii) The surrender Value would be payable after three policy years. Further, if first three years, premiums have not been paid and the Policy is lapsed, the Surrender Value would be payable at the expiry of the revival period or three policy years, whichever is later. iii) No surrender charge will be applied in case of partial or complete surrender of units in respect of Top Up Premium.” 8. From the perusal of the above said sub-clause, it is apparent that the surrender value of the policy was equal to the fund value less surrender charges, if any. The fund value has been explained by the OP in Para No.3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement. Thus, the fund value of the policy on the date of receipt of request for surrender was Rs.21,300/-. So, the complainant was entitled to the above said amount. 9. Except the self-serving affidavit of the complainant, there is no material on record to prove that any assurance was given to the complainant that she would get at least Rs.45,000/- after payment of three premiums. In the absence of such evidence, to our mind, the complainant has failed to prove this fact. So, to our mind, the amount offered and paid to the complainant is as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In our considered view, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same deserves dismissal. 10. Therefore, in view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 31st May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II [Complaint Case No:159 of 2011] ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 30.05.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 31.05.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
