Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/37/2017

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepshika Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chawla, Adv.

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	37 of 2017
Date of Institution	28.02.2017
Date of Decision	02.03.2017

1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.139-140, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

2^nd Address:-

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.215-216-217, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office : GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006                   (through Sh. Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insuance Co. Ltd., SCO 215-217, Sector-34, Chandigarh.)

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Deepshikha Garg wife of Sh.Naveen Goel, C/o House NO.57, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                      …..Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.01.2017 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant. It is also not out of place to mention here that earlier the Appeal bearing No.138 of 2016 was filed in this Commission, by the Appellants/Opposite Parties, on 05.05.2016, against the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by District Forum-II. However, the case was remanded back to the aforesaid District Forum, vide order dated 19.07.2016, passed by this Commission. Order dated 29.02.2016 passed by District Forum-II, in which the earlier Complaint Case was allowed, is reproduced hereunder, by which the Opposite Parties are directed, to comply with the order jointly and severally:-

“[a]  To calculate the surrender value of the policy of the complainant in terms of IRDA Regulation 2010 & 2013, reproduced above, and pay the remaining amount of such surrender value after deducting Rs.1,13,330.47, along with interest @12% p.a. from 28.9.2013 till it is paid. 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

                  The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above,  from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [a] & [c] above.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant was approached by the representative of the Opposite Parties to invest the amount in insurance policy, which is a kind of fixed deposit floated by the Opposite Parties, in which there are benefits like fixed deposit alongwith insurance cover. It was stated that being allured by the said offer made by the representative of the Opposite Parties, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It was further stated that the agent of the Opposite Parties got her signatures, on blank form, after getting the general information, but did not take income proof, residence proof, legal name etc. and without disclosing detail terms and conditions applicable thereto. It was further that the complainant received the policy document after a long span of time (Annexure C-1).  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have issued the policies, but neither verification has been done, nor any proof has been attached, with regard to the health and income of the complainant, and thus, ignored KYC norms of IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also did not follow & comply with the circular/instructions issued by the IRDA (Annexures C-4 & C-5) while issuing the policy.  It was further submitted that the complainant paid regular premium to the Opposite Parties for four years, but the Opposite Parties paid back very less amount, in comparison to the deposited premium, whereas, the IRDA has issued guidelines on 01.07.2010 vide Annexure C-6, clarifying the position, as to how the charges are to be deducted while refunding the amount to the consumers, at the time of discontinuance of the insurance policy.
3. It was further stated that in the case of the complainant, the policy stands terminated in fifth year and hence, no charges can be deducted on the refund value. It was further stated that the complainant procured one statement of account dated 28.09.2013 (Annexure
   C-7) in which no calculation or statement has been provided towards the amount used and how the amount has suffered loss.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties.
4. The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and stated that the complainant after fully understanding the features, benefits and terms & conditions of Unit Linked Regular Premium “Century Plus” plan, herself out of her free will, proposed for the said policy and opted to pay regular yearly premium @Rs.25,000/- for term of 10 years and accordingly, the policy was issued in the year 2008.  It was further stated that the original policy bond containing terms & conditions of the contract was admittedly received by the complainant and in case she was dissatisfied with the terms & conditions of the contract, she could have given written notice for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond, but she never raised any objection for more than 6 long years and continued paying premium and surrendered the policy in January, 2013.  It was further stated that the policy, in question, was issued prior to the issuance of the circular dated 01.07.2010 and this circular does not apply to the polices issued prior to its issuance, as it does not a retrospective effect.  It was admitted by the Opposite Parties that the complainant paid four regular premiums.  It was further stated that the complainant submitted a request for surrender of the policy on 13.02.2013 and the same was expeditiously processed, as per the terms & conditions of the policy and permissible surrender value amounting to Rs.1,13,330/- was credited in the bank account of the complainant, which has admittedly been received by her, without raising any dispute or protest.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10.  The State Commission vide order dated 19.07.2016 in Appeal No.138 of 2016 remitted the case back to the learned Forum, for fresh decision. Keeping into consideration the details/statements of account, submitted by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2/appellants in the appeal. The details of the statement of account as on 18.7.2016, submitted by the appellants, as under:-

Transaction ID	Req. ID	Transaction	Amount        (Rs.)	Allocation rate %	Net investment (Rs.)	Unit price	Allocated unit
03 –Jan-08		New business regular	25000	98	24500	11.2030	2186.9142
05-Jan-09		Regular premium renewal year	25000	98	24500	9.2170	2658.1317
13-Jan-10		Regular premium renewal year	25000	100	25000	12.2649	2038.3370
31-Jan-11		Regular premium renewal year	25000	100	25000	13.0537	1915.1658
14-Feb-13	4860399	Surrender regular			-113330.47	14.7060	-7706.4104
		Service tax charge			-975.18		-82.1562
		Total mortality charge			-818.67		-69.2664
		Total policy Admin charge			-11119.40		-940.7157
					Balance c/f		.000

         

11. It is clear from the above fact that the complainant/respondent booked the policy on 03.01.2008 and deposited four annual installments of Rs.25,000/- till 31.01.2011. The policy stood terminated in the fifth year, since the complainant did not pay any subscription due on January 2012. The complainant/respondent requested the appellants/Opposite Parties on 14.02.2013, for payment of her charges under the policy and accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,13,330/- was deposited in her account, after deducting of Rs.12,913/-. A perusal of notification dated 01.07.2010 of Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), clearly shows the maximum discontinuation charges for the policies having annual premium upto Rs.25,000/- is below:-

Where the policy is discontinued during the policy year.	Maximum Discontinuance charges for the policies having annualized premium up to Rs.25000/-
1	Lower of 20% (AP or FV) subject to a maximum of Rs.3000.
2	Lower of 15% (AP or FV) subject to a maximum of Rs.2000.
3	Lower of 10% (AP or FV) subject to a maximum of Rs.1500.
4	Lower of 5% (AP or FV) subject to a maximum of Rs.1000.
5 and onwards	Nil

 

12. It is apparent from the record that the policy, in question, stood terminated from January 2012, and as such, as per the guidelines of IRDA given above, no charges on account of discontinuation of policy including administration charges or mortality charges thereof, are leviable in the present case. Further, the account statement clearly reveals that though, the respondent has deposited Rs.25,000/- as annual installments which were due on 2008 and 2009, but the respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had only invested Rs.24,500/- in units, on both occasions, by deducting Rs.500/-, without giving any logical justification, for the same. The appellants/Opposite Parties have concealed material information by not communicating the terms and conditions of the policy to the respondent/complainant and the appellants have not placed on record any evidence for having supplied the same to the respondent. Hence, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, we are of the view, that the order of the District Forum needs no modification. Therefore, we find that the appellants have been grossly deficient in rendering their services and accordingly, the said appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.
14.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

 

Pronounced.

02.03.2017

 

                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

RG

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.37 of 2017)

(Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepshikha Garg)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

 

Dated the 2^nd day of March 2017

 

ORDER

Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 5 days (as per office report no delay) has been filed. For the reasons explained in the application and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, is condoned.

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

      

 

Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Rg