Date of filing : 22-11-2011
Date of order : 31-10-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.317/2011
Dated this, the 31st day of October 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Nalini.A.P. Rama Nivas, } Complainant
Swaminathapuram Road, Po. Oorgaum,
Kolargold field, Kolar, Karnataka, 563122.
(Adv.P.Narayanan, Hosdurg).
1. M. Chandran, Insurance Advertiser, }Opposite parties
Bajaj Allianz, 2nd floor, Bengacherry Complex,
Opp. Vypar Bhavan, Kanhangad.Po. 671315.
2. Manager, Bajaj Allianz, 2nd floor, Bengacherry Complex,
Opp. Vypar Bhavan, Kanhangad.Po. 671315.
3. The Managing Trustee, The Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Company Ltd, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune. 411006. Maharashtra.
(Ops 2 & 3 Adv.K.V.Jayaraj, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Bereft of unnecessaries the grievance of the complainant is that she joined in the insurance scheme launched by opposite party No.1 on 4-7-2008 on the assurance of opposite partyNo.1, the insurance advertiser of opposite parties 2 & 3. The opposite party No.1 made her believe that she will get `2,50,000/- within 3 years if she deposit `1,50,000/- only once. After the term of policy when the complainant approached opposite parties, it is informed that the policy is lapsed due to non-payment of yearly premium and opposite party No.1 has not deposited the entire amount in one policy. Hence complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
2. According to opposite parties, the complaint is false and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in this complaint. Moreover, this complaint is barred by limitation. There is no justification in non-payment of premium as stipulated in the policy. According to opposite parties there is no merit in the complaint and is filed only to harass opposite parties.
3. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination through her Power of Attorney Holder K.P. Muralidharan. He was cross-examined by opposite parties counsel as PW1.Exts A1 to A4 marked. On the side of opposite parties Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The facts of the case in brief is that complainant is a retired teacher. She received an amount of `1,50,000/- by way of retirement benefit on 2008. The 1st opposite party approached the complainant during June 2008 and induced her to take a policy of Bajaj Alliance by promising huge benefits. Opposite party No.1 promised a sum of `2,50,000/- within 3 years if she takes a policy for an amount of `1,50,000/-. Due to the inducement complainant has paid `1,50,000/- to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 received the amount on behalf of opposite parties 2 & 3. She expected an amount of `2,50,000/- after 3 years. But after completion of the period of policy when the complainant approached opposite parties 1 to 3 to get back the amount, then only she came to know that the amount i.e. `1,50,000/- was deposited in 3 policies by dividing the amount in to 3. When the complainant asked for refund of the amount, opposite parties has given 44,130/- as fund value. The policies were lapsed due to non-payment of yearly premium.
5. PW1 is cross examined by the counsel for opposite parties Sri.K.V.Jayaraj. In cross examination PW1 has deposed that complainant joined in scheme as agent told that one time payment is necessary. Complainant has received `44,130/- as fund value after 3 years. PW1 added that they are claiming `2,00,000/- as compensation because agent told that after 3 years complainant will get `2,50,000/-,
6. In the complaint and affidavit complainant makes it clear that she opted to purchase the policy issued by opposite party No.1 only due to the misrepresentations made by opposite party No.1 the insurance agent who acted on behalf of opposite parties 2 & 3. So the signing of the proposal form involved a concealed trap. The duty of disclosure is a pursuance duty and a failure or concealment involves drastic consequences. The agent is engaged to obtain a valid and enforceable contract disclosing all the terms and conditions and riders and risks involved in the policy. Misrepresentation makes the contact of insurance void of voidable if the misleading statement of the agent to the insured is material. The contention of opposite parties that there is no justification in non-payment of yearly premium is not sustainable as the agent opposite party No.1 assured them that one time payment is sufficient.
Another contention raised by the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation is also not sustainable since the complainant received `44130/- as fund value on 25-07-2011 and the term of policy is 10 years from 4-7-2008, so the complaint is filed within the time limit and is not barred by limitation.
7. After the entry of private insurance companies in the insurance sector they are doing aggressive business earlier it was service oriented. But now a days it is purely business motivated as they are bell bent upon selling what they call products. In most cases insurance policies contain numerous terms and conditions that normally are not disclosed to the insured. No insurance agent would explain terms and conditions those appears to be adverse to the interest of the policy holder. The agent of the insurance company turns out to be a most vital factor she should make it a point to explain each and every condition or clause of the policy to the perspective policy holders which is printed in ‘small print’ of which ordinary person would not be in a position to read between the lines. Most of the policy holders rely blindly on the assurance of insurance consultant and in most cases even the literate people will not spare time to read the full text of the policy.
8. Relief & costs.
The complainant has deposited `1,50,000/- on the assurance of opposite party No.1 that she ill get `2,50,000/- in return. But she did not get the said benefits instead of the return of fund value i.e. `44,130/-. Complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount she spent for the policy with interest from the date of deposit with costs.
The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay `1,50,000/- deducted by `44,130/-which they already received i.e. `1,05,870/- with interest @ 9% from 14-06-2008 till date of payment. Opposite parties further directed to pay `5,000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1 . 4-7-2008 first premium receipt for an amount of `49,000/-
A1(a) 4-7-2008 First premium receipt for an amount of `49,000/-
A1(b) 4-7-2008 first premium receipt for an amount of `49,000/-
A2. 25-7-2011 photo copy of cheque for an amount of `14710/-
A2(a &b) ,, ,, `14710/- + 14710
A3. 1-5-2011 copy of G amil.
A4. Power of attorney executed by Nailini.A. in favour of K.P.Muralidharan.
B1to B3 . Proposal forms for life insurance of complainant.
B4 series.27-6-2008 Laboratory report of the complainant.
B4(d) ECG reporting format of the complainant.
PW1. K.P.Muralidharan.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
