Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/54/2012

Punit Chopra S/o Gulshan Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Singh

22 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint  No. 54  of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 17.01.2012

                                                                                          Date of decision: 22.05.2017

 

Punit Chopra aged about 31 years son of Gulshan Chopra, 88 Shastri Colony, Yamuna Nagar Pin Code No.135001 Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Ganpati Building Opp. Madhu Hotel, Railway Station Road, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Country Head Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Limited, GE Plaza, Yerawada, Pune 411006 Maharashtra.         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Respondents.  

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Rajiv Gupta,  Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER( ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Puneet Chopra has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of April, 2007, official of OP No.1 contacted the complainant and explained to him that company is having a scheme which promises good returns beside providing insurance to the investor and explained to him that if the complainant makes one time investment in his company, he would get 35% growth of investment and besides this insurance cover of 10 times of money invested will also be provided to the complainant and further it was also told that he can withdraw the invested money after a period of 3 years of the investment. Accordingly, on believing the version of the said person, the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in cash with the OPs Insurance Company and a policy bearing No. 0066665875 was issued to the complainant on 14.09.2007. After that in July, 2011 complainant was in need of money, therefore, he approached the OP No.1 for withdrawal of the said amount but the official of the Ops told that he could not get the amount as his policy had already been lapsed because he has not deposited the invested amount of Rs. 35,000/- continuously for 10 years and due to non-deposit of the amount, his policy has lapsed. Upon which, the complainant told to the officials that at the time of giving policy to the complainant, it was told to him that he will have to make only one time investment and after making one time investment he would be entitled to withdraw the amount of investment  besides premium after three years of policy. The complainant requested for refund the money but the official refused to do the same. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred by the limitation as per provision of section 24(A) of the C.P. Act 1986, the policy in question was issued in the year 2007 respectively on the basis of proposal made by the complainant himself whereas the present complaint has been filed after a near about 4 ½ years. No objection with respect to the policy in question was ever raised by the complainant for all these years, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant was fully understanding features, benefits, charges, investment risk and terms and conditions of unit linked regular premium “Capital Unit Gain” plan and the complainant himself out of his free will proposed in the said unit linked plan vide proposal dated 24.08.2007 and opted to pay regular early premium of Rs. 35,000/- for premium paying term of 20 years. The proposal form of the complainant was accepted by the OPs Insurance Company and a policy bearing No. 0066665875 was issued to him. However, the complainant failed to discharge his contractual obligation and did not pay the due premium on 14.09.2008 and onwards under the policy knowing well that his policy would lapse. The policy in question lapsed due to non-payment of premium and after that no efforts were made by the complainant to revive the policy in question during the revival period of 2 years from the date of first unpaid premium. Hence, the contract of the insurance stands terminated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and nothing is payable to the complainant. It has been further mentioned that complainant was given 15 days free look cancellation period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to revive the terms and conditions of the contract but as the complainant was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he never approached the OPs to cancel the same within a period of 15 days. Further, the complainant has enjoyed the life cover for Rs. 3,50,000/- for 13 months from the date of commencement of the policy. The account value of the unit linked policies is directly dependent on the market and other conditions, which may vary in accordance with the performance of funds. No interest is admissible to be paid under unit linked policies by the insurance companies and on merit it has been mentioned that the policy in question was sourced by complainant himself as he was licensed by IRDA to act as insurance consultant. So, the version of the complainant that he was misguided by one Sh. Mukesh Sehgal is not believable. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong, incorrect and manipulated one. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on dated 31.08.2016. However, at the time of filing of the complaint the complainant placed on file photo copy of policy schedule, photo copy of proposal form and photo copy of fund statement as on 15.12.2007 Annexure-1 to Annexure-3 in support of his complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shalini (DOH) as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 19.09.2007 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 14.09.2007 first premium receipt as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of trade certificate as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of ration card as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant invested the money of Rs. 35,000/- in the month of April, 2007 which is duly evident from the copy of first premium receipt Annexure-1/R-3.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that at the time of purchasing the policy in question it was told to him that he will get 35% growth on investment and bedside this insurance cover of 10 times of money invested will also be provided to the complainant and further it was told that he can withdraw the invested money alongwith insurance after 3 years of the investment but when he went to withdraw the money in July, 2011 the official of the OPs refused to return the same and further told to him that the policy in question was lying in lapse mode since 14.09.2008 as the complainant has not paid the installments continuously for 20 years.

9                      On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops Insurance Company argued that the complainant was himself/ insurance consultant and was having a license issued by the IRDA to act the same, so, the version of the complainant cannot be believed that he was misguided by one of the official of OPs Mr. Mukesh Sehgal. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant has invested the money by way of “unit link regular premium capital unit gain plan” himself out of his free will and filled the proposal form on 24.08.2007 and opted to pay regular yearly premium of Rs. 35,000/- for 20 years after understanding and accepted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that even otherwise also a 15 days of free look period was given to the complainant to review the terms and conditions of the contract. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the proposal form Annexure R-1 and first premium receipt Annexure R-3 and terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Annexure R-6 and argued that as the policy in question was lying in lapse mode since 14.09.2008 i.e. complainant paid only first premium of Rs. 35000/-, hence the complainant is not entitled to get any amount and requested for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as we have perused the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question Annexure R-6 under clause 5(b)(regular premium) wherein it has been mentioned that “ if the unpaid regular premium was due during the 1^st three policy year, and the policy holder has failed to make the payment before the expiry of aforesaid grace period, (i) the policy shall immediately lapse alongwith all insurance cover, (ii) the policy holder may revive the policy within a revival period of 2 years from the date of 1^st unpaid regular premium subject always to section 5(d) below, failing which the contract shall be terminated and 100% of the value of accumulation units in respect of regular premiums as on date of lapse, and the top up premium fund value, if any shall be paid at the end of the third policy year or at the expiry of the revival period, whichever is later”.

            After going through the above noted condition mentioned in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is clear that Ops Insurance Company was duty bound to return the 100% of value of accumulation units in respect of regular premium and top up premium fund value as on the date of lapse but in the present case neither the OPs Insurance Company has disclosed the fund value of the units as on the date of lapse of the policy in question nor refunded the same to the complainant which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   

11                    On the other angle also, we generally see that when we go to a bank, insurance company or any other institute there are voluminous of documents which are required to be signed by the concerned person and it is also seen that every documents which is got signed is not humanly possible to be gone through by the concerned person, undue benefits is taken of this situation. Similarly seems to be the position in the case in hand and there is every possibility that signature of the complainant had been taken in this manner. No doubt the present complaint has been filed on 17.01.2012 i.e. after the expiry of Lock-in-period of 3 years which was up to April, 2010 as the complainant purchased the policy in question in April, 2007 but even then the OPs till date have not disclosed before this Forum that the complainant is entitled to which amount. Even, the official of the OPs did not bother to file any affidavit disclosing the paid up value against the policy in question. The complainant has hired the services of the OPs Insurance Company just to invest his hard money for his livelihood and the Ops Insurance Company might have charged some amount on account of services charges, commission of agents, stamps duties etc. so it was the duty of the OPs Insurance Company to provide proper and correct information to the complainant from time to time but they did not do so. Even, the OPs Insurance Company has also not disclosed in their written statement that where the amount so deposited by the complainant was invested by the OPs Insurance Company and what was the fate of the amount. Every person hires the services of another person just taking into consideration that the other person is more qualified and competent in the market and he will do best to save his hard money even multiply the same. But, now a days Ops Insurance Companies are playing tactics and getting undue benefits of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policies incorporated in the policy documents as per their own wishes. The case law referred above by the counsel for the Ops are not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we direct the OPs Insurance Company to refund an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/- out of total deposited amount of Rs. 35,000/- on account of office expenses, commission  of the agent, stamp duty, service charges etc. whatsoever, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 22.05.2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)    

                         MEMBER.