Delhi

New Delhi

CC/752/2012

Maldeep Sidhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Alianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/752/12              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh.MALDEEP SIDHU,

D/O SH.D K SIDHU,

R/O45, MADUVAN,

NEW DELHI-110092.

         ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

BAJAJ ALIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

108, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING,

IST FLOOR-19 K G MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001.      

 

 

STANDARD CHARTED BANK

(PRIORITY BANKING SERVICES)

30, COMMUNITY CENTRE,

PREET VIHAR, DELHI-92

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

Member: Ritu Garodia

 

The short case of alleged deficiency is that complainant was getting her bank account closed in OP-2 bank when OP2’s personal financial consultant mislead her to invest in OP-1 policy scheme with assured return of 12% per annum.  It was promised that she can withdraw the entire amount with interest after 3 years.  Complainant filled an assessment form of OP-2 dated 26.5.07 where she has declared (annexed at page 15 of complaint) that she intended to invest only for 3 years.  The policy booklet of OP2 was delivered a month later and when complainant asked about 15 years premier payment she was assured that amount can be withdrawn in 3 years.  Complainant was issued a policy bearing No.0053484685 for premium of Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. with sum assured for Rs.15,00,000/- at the end of 15 years.  The complainant paid 3 premium from June, 2007-09 of Rs.2,00,000/- each amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-   The complainant sent a letter dated 21.9.10 for opting out of policy and followed up telephonically but to no avail.  She finally sent a legal notice dt.18.6.12 to OP-1 and OP-2.

 OP-1 in its reply and WS has stated that complaint is barred by limitation.   It further alleges that payment was due on 22.6.10, the policy could have been revived till 22.6.12.  No payment was made and as such the covered policy was under the terms and conditions heading “Non payment of regular premium and forfeiture” Moreover, it admitted the surrender value of policy is payable but that there was no request from complainant for the same.

OP-2 in its evidence and written argument had stated that complaint is barred by limitation and there is no privity of contract with the complainant.  However, in Para 12 of evidence,   OP-2 admitted to being a facilitator and referral agent between the insurance company i.e. OP-1 and complainant.  The insurance agents of OP-1 are present in OP-2 bank explaining the policy to customers.  It also stated that official of OP2 did not receive any communication regarding policy.

Perusal of records reveals that policy was for a period of 15 years after payment of annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- every year i.e. Rs.30,00,000 in 15 years every year and thereafter the sum assured is only Rs.15,00,000/-   Even, if a person invest in saving bank account or keep it in his own personal custody, it would never become less than Rs.30,00,000/-  How is it fair that innocent consumers, are beguiled  and enticed into such schemes by unscrupulous sales person and referral agents.  The common man is not financially competent to understand the financial jargon propoundedby these smooth operatives of profit making companies.  Only to protect his hard earned savings, earned and saved over many years, an average person goes to financial institution, placing all his trust in such institution for guidance in keeping his money safe to be used in times of need.

Policy is admitted by all parties Policy was due on 22.6.10 and could have been revived till 22.6.12 and the complaint was filed on 7.8.12 and as such complaint is not barred by limitation.  OP-1 after receiving legal notice dated 18.6.12 from complainant (POD annexed) and after filing of complainant admitted that surrender value of policy is payable but no where specified the quantum of surrender value and how it was calculated.  OP1 continues to keep a veil over the amount to be refunded to complainant after receiving Rs.6,00,000/- as premium amount.  OP-2 i.e. the bank has clearly admitted that it is a referral agent for OP1 and agents of OP1 were present in bank premises to explain the policy.  It is obvious that there is some commercial relationship/agreement between OP 1 and OP-2 whereby OP-1 agent were allowed to sell the policies in OP-2 premises.  As OP-2 is benefitting from the purchase of policy by complainant, it cannot absolve itself of its liability towards its customers.

We, therefore find OP-1 & OP-2 jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and direct them to Rs.6,00,000/- along with 9% interest from date of last payment till realization.  We also award Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment mental agony, inconveniences inclusive of inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action will be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 03.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

         

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER