1. The fact of the case of complainant is that she purchased one insurance policy named “Bajaj Allianz Super Cash Gain” on 21.03.2013 vide policy no. 0297315582 for premium of Rs. 1,60,550/- for policy term of 12 years with premium paying term of 7 years. It is alleged that the O.P. No.1 assured that after deposit of 3^rd premium, it is not mandatory to deposit the onward premiums and complainant can surrender at any time. Being convinced, she deposited premiums of Rs. 1,58,145/- for two subsequent years i.e. for 21.03.2013 & 09.04.2014 but no money receipt was given by the O.P. No.1.  It is further alleged that during 3^rd policy year, complainant handed over one cheque bearing no. 001033 dated 09.04.2015 for Rs. 1,58,145/- and after completion of 3^rd policy year, complainant requested the O.P. No.1 for surrender the said policy, but did not receive any response, for which she contacted with the O.P. No.2 and submitted all the relevant documents for surrender of the policy.  It is also alleged that after keeping her wait for about 5 years, on January, 2020 O.P. No.2 replied that the 3^rd premium has not been deposited in the said policy, as such the alleged policy cannot be surrendered and on contact with the O.P. No.1 regarding non deposit of 3^rd premium, who on August, 2020 returned the alleged cheque which was not deposited in time and she lost the benefits of the policy and also no notice and intimation was received from the O.Ps for non deposit of 3^rd premium.  In this regard several efforts of complainant got in vein.  Thus showing deficiency in service, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the entire deposited amount with interest and Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice, but did not choose to appear in the case, nor filed her counter versions nor also participated in the hearing, and we lost every opportunities to hear from her, as such the allegations of complainant made against her remained unchallenged and unrebutted. 
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3 appeared through their common Ld. Counsel and filed their counter versions in shape of written statement, wherein it is found that the many parts of contentions mentioned in the counter version are something different to the present dispute and those are no way related to the present dispute, as such we feel, the O.P. No.2 & 3 has not properly verified the contentions of their written statement prior to filing before this Commission.  However, admitting the issue of alleged insurance policy in favour of the complainant, they have denied the allegations contending that an opt-out-option had given to the complainant in the first 15 days of receipt of the policy bond, even if the complainant is not satisfied, she can surrender the policy and could have got her full amount.  Further contended that the cause of action arose on 09.04.2015 when the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 1,58,145/- hence not maintainable and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Complainant has filed the documents like

1. Copy of insurance policy bond bearing no. 0297315582

2. Copy of bank passbook showing deduction of two numbers of premiums.

3. Copy of alleged cheque bearing no. 001033 dated 09.04.2015.

Whereas the O.Ps have filed the documents like

1. Copy of proposal form

2. Copy of policy details.

5. Heard from the complainant and A/R of O.P. No. 2 & 3. Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
6. From the documents and submissions of parties, it is ascertained that issue of alleged insurance policy in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact.  The allegation of complainant is that after depositing the 2^nd premium in the alleged policy, she handed over the one cheque to the O.P. No.1, who kept the said cheque with her for a long period without depositing the same with the O.P.No.2 & 3, for which she lost the benefits out of the policy.  Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear throughout the proceeding, inspite of valid notice served upon her, we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the submissions of complainant is true ?  As such the allegations made against the O.P. No.1 remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No.1. Whereas the contention of O.Ps is that cause of action arose on 09.04.2015 when the alleged cheque was issued and complainant did not raise her claims within two years, hence case is not maintainable.  In this regard, we would like to make it clear that since the complainant has obtained the alleged policy which continued till the date of maturity i.e. 20.03.2025, as such the cause of action continues till 2025.  Further the complainant already deposited two number of premiums against the said policy and also handed over the alleged cheque to the O.P. No.1 issued in favour of “Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.” on dated 09.04.2015 to continue the said policy, the cause of action continues till the date of its maturity i.e. upto 2025, hence in our view the case is filed within time period and does not attract the period of limitation.

7. Further it is ascertained from the submissions of O.P. No. 2 & 3 that they raised the plea regarding free look period, which is a matter of surprise that how they have raised such plea after receiving two number of premiums against the alleged policy, whereas they have forgotten that the complainant has already deposited two number of premiums against the alleged policy for 1^st year on 2013 and 2^nd year on 2014, as such in our view, the free look period does attract in the present case.
    
8. Further it is ascertained that though the O.P. No.2 & 3 have filed documents related to the present dispute, but in their counterpart, they have raised many pleas which are no way related to the present disputes, rather the contentions are related to some other policy of different person, hence we think, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 have gone through their counter version prior to filing before us and we do not find merit in their counter version, as such all the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of all O.Ps.  In this connection, we have fortified with by the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”    

9. Further the allegation of complainant is that the O.Ps have not issued any intimation or informed her about non deposit of 3^rd premium against the alleged policy, whereas, the O.Ps have submitted that they have issued the intimation letter as per the norms of company to the complainant, but the O.Ps have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove their contentions, as such we feel, without any cogent evidence, the plea of O.Ps cannot be sustained. 

10. Further it is seen that on many instances that only due to the improper services of the agents, the insurance companies are suffering heavily on socially and financially which is not supposed to happen.  Also it is seen that only to gain higher commissions, generally agents follow wrong procedure to motivate the customers by forgetting their duties to provide services. And in the instant case also the same is happened.  Hence we feel, the agent is solely liable to compensate the complainant for his sufferings and loss. 
     
11. Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried her level best to get back her deposited premium from the O.Ps., but failed, for which she was compelled by the O.Ps to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such she is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering her suffering, we feel Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                        ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 & 3 being the insurer of alleged policy is herewith directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 3,21,100/- to the complainant with prevailing bank interest from 09.04.2015 till filing of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the deposited amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the 09.04.2015 till payment.  Further the agent O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 20 ,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.

  Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of February, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.