DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:640 of 2010] Date of Institution :01.10.2010 Date of Decision :15.02.2012 -------------------------------------------- Sh. R. P. Singla resident of House No.403, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, SCO No.139-140, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Vijay Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. R. P. Singla has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To pay the value of the accumulation units in respect of the premium of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To award any other relief which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.0033020546 dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure C-1) from the OP. He paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as first premium vide cheque No.317936 dated 11.12.2006. Subsequently, due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not continue the said policy. According to the complainant, as per Clause 5(b) of the Agreement (Annexure C-2), OP was supposed to pay amount equivalent to the value of Accumulated Units towards the first premium paid by him. However, no such amount was paid to him. So, the complainant made a request vide letter dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure C-3) to the OP for payment of the amount, which became payable after completion of three years. However, the OP refused to pay any amount vide its letter dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure C-4). According to the complainant, non payment of the amount in accordance of Clause 5(b) of the agreement, amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded that since the Insurance Policy i.e. Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain No.0033020546 obtained by the complainant had lapsed due to non payment of the subsequent premium, the complainant has no right to make any sort of claim or relief from the OP. It is further asserted that even no request was received from the complainant for revival of the said policy within the grace period of 30 days. According to the OP, the complainant cannot claim relief under Clause 5(b) of the Agreement, as the said clause is applicable only to those policy holders who paid regular premium for the first three years. As per the OP, the complainant had paid only the first premium, therefore, according to OP, his policy had lapsed and forfeited due to non payment of subsequent insurance premium as per the terms and conditions of the policy. According to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Clause (1) of the Policy document defines “Accumulation Unit” and “Capital Unit” as under: - “Accumulation Unit” is a unit allocated in respect of Regular Premium payable after the first Policy Year and payment of Top-Up Premium any time during the Policy Term. “Capital Unit” is a unit allocated in respect of Regular Premium, payable during the first Policy Year. 6. Clause 5(b) of the Policy Document, on which the reliance has been placed by the complainant reads as under: - “5) Non payment of Regular Premium and Forfeiture. a) xxxxx b) If the unpaid Regular Premium was due during the first three Policy years, and the Policyholder has failed to make the payment before the expiry of the aforesaid grace period; i) The Policy shall immediately lapse along with all insurance covers. ii) The Policyholder may revive the Policy within a revival period of two years from the due date of first 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. iii) If policy is lapsed and the death of the Life Assured happens, the existing Fund Value would be paid and the policy will terminate immediately.” 7. From Sub Clause 5(b)(ii), it is apparent that the Policyholder may revive the Policy within the revival period of two years from the due date of first unpaid Regular Premium subject to Section 5(d). In case, the Policyholder fails to revive the policy, the contract shall terminate. Further the Policyholder shall be entitled to 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. 8. From the combined reading of Clause 5(b) as well as definition of “Accumulation Unit” and “Capital Unit”, it is clear that the Accumulation Unit is a unit allocated in respect of Regular Premium payable after the first policy year and payment of Top Up Premium any time during the Policy Term. Thus, Accumulation Unit is the unit allocation in respect of regular premium payable after the first policy year. In the present case, the complainant has not paid any premium after the first policy year. So, there is no Accumulation Unit payable under Clause 5(b) of the Policy Document, on which reliance has been placed by the complainant. As per the terms of the Policy Document, the complainant has only “Capital Unit”. In view of Clause 5(b), the policy terminated after the lapse of due date of the payment of the second premium as the said policy was not continued by the complainant. As such, the entire first premium was invested in Capital Units and at the end of third policy year, if the demand of the complainant of the said money is considered as the surrender of the policy, then the surrender charges, as applicable under Clause 37(f), being 100% of the value of the Capital Units are to be paid by the complainant. The said Clause reads as under:- “f) Surrender Charges. xxxx If at least three full years Regular Premium have not been paid the Surrender Charges will be 100% of the value of the Capital Units.” Hence, the OP cannot be made liable to pay anything to the complainant. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 15th February, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.640 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 14.02.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 15.02.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
