Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1055/2013

Sumita Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 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/1055/13                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

MS.SUMITA JAIN,

2879/2, GALI JANGPURIA,

GROUND FLOOR, SIRKIWALAN,

HAUZ KAZI, DELHI-110006.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

BAJAJ ALIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

108, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING,

IST FLOOR-19 K G MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001.       

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER [ORAL]

Date of Arguments: 30.07.2015

MEMBER:  RITU GARODIA

 

Present: Both the Parties. Argument heard

Brief facts are that the complainant bought a “Bajaj Allinza Young Care” policy bearing number 014732834”.  The policy commenced from 17.8.2008 with premium allocation rate for 1 year at 45%, 2^nd year at 97% and from 11 years onwards to 100%. This fact was disputed by the complainant and brought into attention of insurance company regarding percentage of investment amount and thereafter OP company issued a fresh endorsement wherein 1^st year, investable amount was 95,000/- 2^nd year the amount was Rs.97,000/- and 3^rd year the amount was Rs.97,000/-(annexed at page 8 of complaint).  The complainant were shocked to receive the OPs statement of account dated 9.4.2013 which showed that allocation rate in first year was 45%, 2^nd and 3^rd year 97%.  Thereafter, complainant was filed.

OP in its version has stated that proposal form clearly states that allocation for investment is 45% in first year as per standard practice.  It has denied the endorsement stating it to be forged document.

We have perused the pleading and heard the arguments.  OP has admitted the allocation percentage in proposal form.  OP though disputed endorsed document as forgery.  The endorsement is on OPs letter head. OP has not made any enquiries till date regarding the forged documents.  Mere bald statement about forgery without adducing any evidence for same does not hold any credence in our view.   OP after endorsing Rs.95,000/- to be invested out of total premium of rs.1,00,000/- cannot  turn back and invest Rs.45,000/- in first year.

In our considered view; OP is guilty of unfair and deceptive trade practice by miss-selling the policy to the complainant.  OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to complainant due to ethically questionable practices. We also award Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

The payment be made 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 30.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER