Punjab

Sangrur

CC/469/2014

GURDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM, BAJAJ ALLIANZ - Opp.Party(s)

GURINDERPAL SHARMA

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    469

                                                Instituted on:      14.08.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2015

Gurdeep Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, resident of Shivpuri, Ward No.11, House No.174, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 45, POCKT 1, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Branch Mnager.

2.     Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Club Road, Near Telephone Exchange, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     Kuldeep Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Near Nanaksar Gurudwara, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Gurinderpal Sharma, Advocate.

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

For OP no.3.             :       Shri J.S.Sarao, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurdeep 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 OP number 3 who is the authorised agent of OPs number 1 and 2 approached the complainant and told that if the complainant pays Rs.10,000/- annually for three years, he will receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on expiry of three years as such, the complainant purchased the policy bearing number 0136300750 on 9.10.2009 and deposited Rs.10,000/- annually on 9.10.2009, 9.10.2010 and 9.10.2011 with the OPs.  The case of the complainant is that after the expiry of three years, the complainant approached the OPs and requested OP number 2 to release the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per assurance of OP number 3, but the OPs number 2 and 3 told that the policy is for 20 years and the complainant had to pay the premium for 20 years, as such the complainant requested the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/-, but nothing happened. Thereafter the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 23.7.2014 upon the OPs for refund of the amount of Rs.30,000/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part  of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation apart from compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.55,500/-.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complainant has filed the complaint by concealing true facts.  It is stated that the policy in question was for 20 years of period and not for three years as such its maturity is payable only after 20 years.  It is admitted that the complainant had deposited three instalments with the OPs.  It is further stated that the original policy document containing express and agreed terms of the policy were sent to the complainant vide speed post on 13.10.2009 and he was an opportunity to get cancelled the policy within the free look period of 15 days, but he did not do so.   The question of making any payment to the complainant does not arise at all.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, the allegations of the complainant have been denied. Any deficiency in service on its part has also been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 postal receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of policy, Ex.C-7 copy of account statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 have produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of sample benefit illustration, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of consent of non standard age, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of ID proof, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of application, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of ID card, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of application, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of PAN card, Ex.OP1&2/9 copy of fund value of policy, Ex.OP1&2/10 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

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

 

6.             Keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents tendered by the parties, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by purchasing the policy in question and had paid Rs.30,000/- in three instalments i.e. of Rs.10,000/- each.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that OP number 3, agent of the OPs number 1 and 2 assured at the time of selling the policy that the complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- for three years only and thereafter he will be entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- after the expiry of period of three years.   But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has vehemently contended that the complainant had to pay the premium of Rs.10,000/- for twenty years as per the policy terms and conditions which he has failed to pay to the OPs as per the policy terms and conditions, as such he is not entitled to get anything under the policy in question.     

 

8.             Ex.C-2 is a copy of the legal notice served upon the Ops by the complainant through his counsel, wherein he has clearly alleged that he visited a number of times to the Ops for getting the refund of the amount of Rs.30,000/-, but nothing was paid.  But, on the other hand, the Ops have not sent any reply to the legal notice of the complainant.  Ex.OP1&2/1 is the copy of proposal form which shows that the complainant has signed the proposal form in Punjabi language meaning thereby the complainant was explained nothing about the insurance policy in question. Rather the signatures of the complainant were got on blank form.  The learned counsel for the Ops has contended that the complainant is entitled to get the surrender value only to the tune of Rs.21579.02 as on 6.1.2015 as is also evident from the copy of document Ex.OP1&2/9.  We may mention here that the OPs have disclosed only before this Forum that the amount of Rs.21579.02 only being the fund value is payable to the complainant as on 6.1.2015, but before filing of the present complaint, the Ops did not provide such an information to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.21579.02 to the complainant.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.21579.02 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 6.1.2015 till realisation.  Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. 

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within  a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member