By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 28.10.2007 till its full realization and also to direct them to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages to the mental agony to the complainant for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and cost of this proceedings.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant had taken an Insurance Policy known as Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus SP Non participating Unit Linked Plan, Policy No.0072634535, Product Code 68 UIN 116L032V02, Policy Commencement date 28.10.2007 Regular Premium Rs.2,00,000/-, Date of birth is 15.10.1949, age admitted 58 years, Maturity date 28.10.2012, Date of Commencement of risk 28.10.2007 Vesting date 28.10.2012. Single premium Rs.2,00,000/-, Basic benefit-0, Additional rider benefit-UIN, Model Premium – Rs.2,00,000/-, Account value - Rs.1,95,950/-, Bajaj Allianz equity growth pension fund.
3. The salient features of the said policy is that it is a single premium policy and the term and termination of the said policy is of 5 years. The maturity date and vesting date of the policy is on and after 28.10.2012. In the original policy issued to the complainant in page 4 the opposite parties have stated:- “Model Premium Rs.2,00,000/-, Account Value Rs.1,95,950/-, Bajaj Allianz equity growth pension fund”. After the expiry of the effective maturity date of the said policy, the opposite parties have not inform the complainant about the maturity value of the policy and not given any further instruction to the complainant. In that circumstances, the complainant wants to get back Rs.2,00,000/- with its accrued interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. The policy was a single premium policy. The complainant says that he has not given either express or by recommendation to convert the policy to some other schemes. So on the expiry of 5 years, the complainant says that he is entitled to get back the policy amount. So the complainant requested the opposite parties to give back the maturity value of policy with interest. But the opposite parties refused the demand, so the complainant sent a Lawyer Notice to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 19.12.2012 demanding the return of Rs.2,00,000/- with 18% interest thereof within 15 days of receipt of notice. The opposite parties received the notice on 28.12.2012 but the demand of complainant is not considered by the opposite parties till the filing of this complaint. No reply is send. Aggrieved by this, the complainant had preferred this complaint before this Forum.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the Forum send Notices to the opposite parties and the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. The complainant filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1, and marked Exts.A1 and A2. The opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 are marked. On perusal of the complaint, affidavits and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- To prove the case of the complainant, in addition to complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and produced two documents and marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the Lawyer Notice send to the opposite parties demanding the insurance amount with 18% accrued interest. Ext.A2 is the certificates of delivery of Notice. The opposite parties did not send any reply or responded to the notice. The opposite parties did not pay back the matured amount to the complainant. The opposite parties field version stating that the complainant had executed proposal form and opted for availing Bajaj Allainz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Policy SP and the same is a pension policy under Deffered annuity. More over, the complainant instructed the opposite parties to invest 30% of the investible premium in Equity Growth Pension Fund and 70% in equity index pension fund II and by selecting funds which are exposed to capital markets the complainant agreed to bear the entire investment risks that may arise out of his investment decisions of complainant.
6. It is further stated that as per the information given by the complainant the above said single premium policy was issued with premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and policy commencement date is 28.10.2007. It was categorically stated in the policy bond that vesting date of the policy is 5 years. The policy bond along with term and conditions was forwarded to the complainant along with copy of proposal form executed by the complainant in order to double confirm that the contents contained in the proposal form were in fact provided by the complainant and also in the covering letter it is clearly stated that the complainant can go through the terms and conditions of the policy and if at all if he is not agreeable for any of the policy terms nor any of the policy terms are not as explained by the insurance consultant then the complainant is at liberty to return the policy by giving written notes and the insurance company would refund the amount as per the applicable guidelines. In this case the complainant had not raised any grievance and it is deemed that he is agreeable for the terms and conditions and features of policy which was clearly mentioned in the policy bond. It is further submitted that the complainant has admitted the receipt of the said policy bond as relied on the same in this complaint.
7. Moreover in clause 3(b) (2) of the policy terms it was clearly stated that “The Life Assured may be receive in lump sum up to a maximum of 1/3rd of the fund value as on the vesting date. The balance amount will be used to purchase an immediate annuity for the life assured from the company at the immediate annuity for the prevailing at that time or from any other insurer in the open market as chosen by the Life Assured. The policy holder has to exercise this option at least 6 months before the Vesting date.
8. Here in this case, the complainant stated that he availed a single premium policy and its maturity date is 5 years from 28.10.2007. So the policy matured on 28.10.2012. On maturity, the complainant made several demands to the opposite parties to give back the amount with accrued interest. But the opposite parties did not pay back the amount. At last Ext.A1 notice send and the said notice is served to the opposite parties as per Ext.A2. But the opposite parties did not responded to it. According to the complainant the matured amount was urgently needed to the complainant for the future studies of complainant's daughter's child. Moreover, the complainant's case is that he joined in such a policy wherein the maturity amount will be paid back on maturity date. The complainant says that the opposite parties might have misappropriated the amount given by him under the policy and further states that on maturity date, the opposite parties did not inform him about maturity. The opposite parties did not produce any document to prove that they have duly intimated the complainant about maturity of policy. It is evidenced that the complainant had send lawyer notice to the opposite parties and the said notice was delivered to the opposite parties. No reply is send by opposite parties. So there is absolute latches on the part of the opposite parties in dealing the matter. Hence we feel that the complainant have no intention to continue the deposit of policy matured amount with the opposite parties or with anyone else. He wants to get back the amount for his future needs. So the opposite parties cannot withheld the amount by saying technicalities of policy, policy bond, conditions etc... Here the intention of the complainant is very much important. A depositor should be given liberty to withdraw his deposit if he really intends to do so. Here the opposite parties stated that the maturity amount of complainant is not so far diverted to any other schemes. So it is the duty of the opposite parties to give back the amount to the complainant on his demand. In cross examination of the opposite parties witness that is OPW1, the witness stated that the Ext.B1 authorization letter is not bearing round seal in it and do not know who has put signature in it. And also stated that Ext.B1 is not as per company law. OPW1 also stated that there is no document to prove the consent of complainant to re-invest the matured amount. No document is produced before the Forum to prove the due intimation on maturity and the consent of complainant to re-invest the fund. So the contentions of opposite party is doubtful. So we are of the opinion that the complainant have every right to get back the matured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- together with accrued interest at the rate of 18% per annum till payment. There is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties and it is beyond doubt. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, opposite party No.2 being the holder of matured amount. He is liable to pay the amount and compensate to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is only an agent of opposite party No.2.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to repay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) only with 18% interest from the date of deposit that is 28.10.2007 till realization. Moreover the opposite party No.2 is directed pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) only towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand
Five Hundred) only towards cost of the proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of February 2014.
Date of Filing:20.04.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. Prabhakaran. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
PW1. Biji. K. P. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:19.12.2012.
A2. Certificate of Delivery of Notice. Dt:27.02.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1. Authorization Letter.
B2. Copy of Letter. Dt:27.11.2007.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
