Heard learned counsel for the appellant .
2. None appears for the respondent.
3. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
4. The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased the policy under Easy Pension Plus from the OP. It is alleged that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in six half yearly installments for Rs.25,000/- each. The complainant alleged that he has deposited 1st premium on 06.11.2005. The policy has got maturity after five years. The complainant alleged inter-alia that after maturity the complainant asked the OP No.1 for maturity amount. For that he has also deposited the documents but OP No.1 informed that he has to only receive Rs.2,05,738/- against the policy which is less than the assured amount. So, the complainant expressed his unwillingness to continue the policy. Inspite of request of the complainant, OP did not agree to refund the outstanding amount and compelled the complainant to continue the policy. The complainant could not arrange the money for his daughter’s marriage. Showing deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
5. The OP filed written version stating that the complainant has suppressed the material facts with regard to suppression of terms and conditions of the policy. They averred that as per terms and conditions if the policy holder does not want to continue the policy, he had option to fill up cancellation form of the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy, the premium paid would be refunded subject to deduction of other charges. It is further averred that since the complainant did not opt for cancellation of the policy, the OP deemed it that the terms and conditions of policy are acceptable to the complainant. It is stated that the policy of the complainant is an unit link policy and speculative in nature. Since, it is for investment purpose, the complainant is deemed to have purchased policy for commercial purpose for which the complaint is not maintainable. However, they averred that they have no deficiency of service.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxx xxx
“ i.The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the total deposited sum alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of commencement of the policy.
ii. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only including the cost of litigation to the complainant.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied within 3 days of date of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had purchased the Bajaj Alliance New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP policy. According to him it is also unit linked policy. So, as per the terms and conditions of the policy the amount of Rs.2,05,738/- is only refundable. He further stated that learned District Forum committed error in law by not going through the written version and the documents of the OP. When the policy is unit linked, the maturity amount will be computed as such. The complainant has withdrawn the policy after the maturity period, he is only entitled to surrender charge as applicable under unit linked policy. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plan is very clear to show that it is not unit linked and he has already deposited six nos. of installments but subsequently does not want to continue the policy being the financer due to financial crunch. According to him, as per the condition the day when he surrendered the policy, the money should be calculated accordingly but 14 months after the surrender of policy ,OP awarded less payment. So, he submitted to dismiss the appeal.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
10. The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP. It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid six instalments for Rs.25,000/- in each instalment to the OP. The sum assured was Rs.1,50,000/-. It is admitted fact that the complainant, after maturity period surrendered policy expressing need of money but the OP did not settle the matter for 14 months for which the complainant filed the case.
11. The complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In support of his contention he has filed the 1st premium receipt. Such receipt shows that plan has been under Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP but it is not clear whether it is unit linked policy only. He has also filed the proposal form and challan deposit alongwith the necessary receipts. The copy of the letter dtd.11.02.2012 shows that the OP asked for filing of documents giving the maturity benefit. In reply to that letter, the complainant stated to have deposited the documents but no reply has been received except assurance to pay maturity amount of Rs.2,05,738/- to which the complainant did not agree. But the letter was issued by the OP for settling the claim. When documents had been filed, the OP was expected to settle the account and send to the account of the complainant.
12. The OP in their written version simply took plea that this policy is unit linked and the complainant is eligible to get the money as per the NAV of the unit which has to be calculated on the date of payment. Nothing has been maintained in the written version since when the matter has been lying with the OP after policy has been surrendered. Whether it is unit linked or not, it is for the OP to establish because admittedly the complainant has purchased the pension plus plan. So, sitting over the claim of the complainant by the OP, is itself the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In this regard, this Commission do not find any reason to interfere the finding of the learned District Forum. But the impugned order directing to return to pay total deposit amount requires to be modified because the complainant is entitled to the amount as per the insurance policy on the date of surrender of the policy. Therefore, the impugned order is modified directing the OP to pay the amount as per insurance policy of easy pension plus on the date of the surrender to the complainant and if that amount will not paid within 45 days from today then the order of the learned District Commission in this regard will be revived. So far compensation is concerned, the impugned order is modified by directing OP to pay Rs.45,000/- within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which it will carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
