Punjab

StateCommission

A/809/2015

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jasbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chawla

13 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.809 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.07.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 09.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   13.02.2017

 

1.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., near Tehsil Complex,      Garshankar Road, Branch Office : Balachaur, District SBS          Nagar through its Manager.

 

2.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, K.C. Tower,    Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through      its Manager.

 

3.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd & Head Office, GE          Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, Maharashtra through its   Managing Director.

 

          (through Sh. Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Bajaj,        Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd, SCO 215-217, Sector 34,          Chandigarh).

 

                                                                   Appellants/Opposite parties        

             Versus

 

Jasbir Singh s/o Sohan Lal r/o Village Sudha Majra, Tehsil Balachaur Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab.

 

                                                               Respondent/Complainant

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellants                       : Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

          For respondent                      : Sh.Suneet Sharma, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants preferred this appeal against order dated 26.05.2015 of District Forum SBS Nagar, accepting the complaint of the respondent of this appeal by directing the appellants to pay the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- to him after deducting Rs.5,000/-. Respondent no.1 of this appeal is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum concerned and appellants of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments he was assured by officials of the OPs to this effect that his amount would be doubled in three years, in case he invested it in single time investment, which is like FDR. The complainant invested the amount of Rs.2 lac in single premium policy and put his signatures on some printed blank papers in good faith believing it as a single time investment in a single premium policy. The officials of OPs asked the complainant that process of issuance of policy would take some time. The investment of complainant with OPs would be matured in March 2013 and complainant would receive the insurance document. The OPs issued receipt bearing no.B-4336573 against the aforesaid amount of Rs.2 lac received from the complainant in March 2013. The OPs refused to refund his money and to supply the policy documents to him. The OPs refused to admit the lawful claim of the complainant. The OPs are deficient in service. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint directing the OPs to refund his amount of Rs.2 lac along with interest, besides compensation of Rs.2 lac for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. Preliminary objection was raised that complaint is barred by time. The policy no. 0161373767 was issued by OPs with date of commencement on 28.03.2010 in accordance with the proposal form duly signed and submitted by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the policy contract were sent to complainant through speed post no. EP0257089431N dated 25.05.2010, which was duly received by him. The complainant never complained about non-receipt of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant concealed the material facts deliberately from the Forum. The allegations of the complainant regarding non-receipt of policy documents are concocted and would not affect the Unit Gain Protection Plus-II for all customers throughout India and as per the  approvals of the IRDA. The terms and conditions of the insurance are binding on the parties. The allegation of any misrepresentation upon the complainant by the OPs was vehemently controverted. The policy documents, which were sent through speed post have not been received back undelivered and presumption was duly raised that they were received by the complainant. The complainant filled in the proposal form and there is no question of any exercise of force or fraud upon him in obtaining these documents. The complainant was required to pay the yearly premiums @ Rs.2 lac for premium paying term for 20 years, but he has not paid the yearly regular premiums due on 28.03.2011. The surrender charges, if any, are payable only after first three policy years being lock-in period. The question of refund of premium sought by the complainant after taking the policy is meaningless. The complaint was contested even on merits that complainant with free will purposed for Unit Linked Regular Premium Unit Gain Protection Plus-II policy after understanding the benefits, features, charges, investment risk and other terms and conditions thereof. This fact was denied that complainant was not aware of the investment being made by him. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by OPs and policy in question was issued to him with date of commencement on 28.03.2010 and complainant was requested to pay yearly regular premiums @ Rs.2 lac for 20 years. The OPs controverted other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Manu Kumar Assistant Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum SBS Nagar accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 26.05.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum SBS Nagar dated 26.05.2015, OPs now appellants, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The District Forum recorded the finding that notice has not been given by the insurer before expiry of three months from the date on which premium in respect of policy for life insurance payable, but not paid, disclosing options available to insured. The District Forum relied upon IRDA Regulation 2013, holding that charges levied on the date of discontinuance (as percentage of one annualized premium) do not exceed the specified limits given in Regulations. On the basis of these regulations, the District Forum directed the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- after deducting Rs.5,000/- therefrom, as set out in the regulations. The submission of counsel for appellant before us is that these regulations are not applicable in this case. It is evident from perusal of the record and pleadings of the parties that date of commencement of the policy is 28.03.2010. The point for adjudication is whether the applicability of IRDA Regulation 2013, as sought to be applied by the District Forum is justifiable one in this case or not.  We find that the policy pertains with date of commencement from 28.03.2010 and the above regulations would not be applicable with retrospective effect. The IRDA Regulation, 2013 came into force on date of their notification in the official gazette only and not with retrospective effect.

7.      The next point for adjudication before us is whether the terms and conditions of the policy were received by the complainant or not? The complainant filed the complaint in the year 2014 and the policy related back to the year 2010. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A that the terms and conditions of the policy were not issued to him. We have examined the evidence on the record. Ex.C-1 is document pertaining to the policy. Ex.C-2 is registered notice sent by the complainant to OPs on 18.12.2013, as is evident from the postal receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 on the record. Ex.C-7 is special power of attorney document executed by the complainant Jasbir Singh in favour of Rajesh Kumar as his special power of attorney holder. Ex.C-8 is e-mail dated 3 June 2014 regarding alleged inducement given to the complainant by official of OPs for doubling up the amount by March 2013 within three years period. Another e-mail dated 4 June 2014 is Ex.C-9 giving reply that policy was issued on 28.03.2010, which was sent by Customer Service of OPs. There is no other evidence on the record adduced by the complainant. On the other hand, Manu Kumar Assistant Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. stated in his affidavit Ex.OP-A that policy was sent to complainant through speed post no. EPO25708943IN dated 25.05.2010, which was duly received by the complainant. It was not received back undelivered. He stated in his affidavit that complainant understood the terms and conditions after reading them and then filled in the proposal form in the case for taking up the policy. Ex.OP-1 is letter that any application after free look period time would not be applicable for cancellation of the policy in question. Ex.OP-2 is proposal form filled in by the complainant, it is signed by the complainant and is witnessed by Bala Chand. The complainant gave noting on it that he has understood the plan voluntarily. Ex.OP-3 is terms and conditions of the policy. It is plain from its perusal that it is Unit Linked Policy. Clause 5 of it deals with that where policyholder has failed to make a payment of Regular Premium by the due date, a grace period of 30 days for premium frequencies other than monthly and 15 days for monthly payment frequency is allowed, during which the Regular Premium due must be received by the company in full. In the event of failure to make payment of full regular premium failing due during the first three policy years and non-payment of the complete amount due even within the grace period, the policy shall automatically and immediately lapse for the insurance cover including the cover under all riders. We find force in the submission of appellant, if the complainant has not received the terms and conditions of the policy and he sat over near about four years over this matter without complaining about it to OPs at any time. He has not filed even a single complaint to OPs for non-receipt of policy's terms and conditions. The OPs gave speed post no. EPO25708943IN as well in the pleadings on which policy's terms and conditions were sent to the complainant. It is not credible that complainant sat silently over this matter for a period of four years approximately, in case policy's terms and conditions were not delivered to him. Since complainant filled in proposal form and accepted the terms and conditions thereof and hence complainant is supposed to have signed the proposal form after understanding the same. The onus is upon the complainant to prove that any fraud or practice was exercised upon him by the OPs, which fact remained unsubstantiated on the record by the complainant.

8.      In the absence of any fraud or force in imposing this policy upon him, he is considered to have taken it  and failed to exercise free look period option. Once the parties have entered into contract of insurance, they are strictly bound by the terms and conditions of the same. The complainant has not paid the premium for next year and as such, the District Forum wrongly ordered the OPs to refund the amount to the complainant after deducting the charges under IRDA Regulations 2013. Section 1 of IRDA Regulations 2013 lays down that these regulations shall come into force on date of their notification in the official gazette. Similarly, it is clear from IRDA (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010 that it shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette. Regulations of IRDA are not applicable with retrospective effect and rather they are applicable prospectively with prospective effect only. The District Forum wrongly applied above regulations, which could not be made applicable with retrospective effect to the policy, which commenced in March 2010. The complainant continuously committed default in payment of two premiums consecutively and he deposited only one premium at the date of commencement of the policy. The complainant cannot back out of the terms and conditions of the policy in this case because we do not find the grievance of the complainant as genuine for non-receipt of the policy document by him.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, the order of District Forum SBS Nagar dated 26.05.2015 is set aside and appeal is accepted by holding that on account of non-payment of further premiums even within lock in period of three years, policy stood lapsed. The complaint filed by the complainant now respondent in this appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

10.    Appellant no.3 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.101750/- in compliance of the order of this Commission, vide receipt dated 18.08.2015. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellant no.3 of this appeal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 13,  2017                                                             

(ravi)