Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/306/2012

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shurati Kant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Mehar son of Shri Rajbit - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.306 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 26.03.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 27.02.2017

Sanjay Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Shruti Kant, R/o V.P.O. Alaher, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Ram Mehar son of Shri Rajbir,
2. Rajbir ( Ex. Official of Haryana Gramin Bank- Alaher Branch) both residents of village Kandroli, P.O. Gumthala, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ganpati Building, Ist Floor, Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.  
4. Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office Alaher, District Yamuna Nagar.
5. Rais Khan S/o Sh. Shakeel Hussain, r/o Village Mandoli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Gaurav Gupta Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. S.D.Partap Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

              Sh. Rameshwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.4.

              Respondent No. 5 already given up vide order dated 04.08.2014.

.  

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sanjay Kumar has been filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having a saving bank account No. 8130100005467 with respondent No.4 (respondents will be referred as OPs). In the month of July, 2009, the complainant was having an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the aforesaid bank account and he wanted to deposit the same under FDR account of the bank and he approached to Op No.4 where he met with the OP No.2 who was the bank employee at that point of time and when the complainant told him about depositing the amount under FDR account for a period of two years, the Op No.2 wasallured the complainant that if he deposits the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with OP No.3 through his son i.e. Op No.1 who is authorized agent of Op No.3 then after maturity of two years the said amount will be returned alongwith more interest to that of the FDR. The complainant was also told he has to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in lump sum only once and that will be returned to him after the maturity of two years with interest. Believing on the assurance of OPs No.1 & 2 complainant allured to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and gave the same to OPs No.1 & 2 after withdrawing the same from his saving account, deposited the same with OP No.3 against receipt No. 0244830617 dated 27.07.2009. After a period of two years i.e. in the month of July, 2011, the complainant wanted to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest but the OPs refused to give the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith relevant interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment and he further told by OPs No.1 & 2 that they have invested the amount of the complainant with Insurance Company i.e. OP No.3 who further invests the same in the share market plan under policy No. 0130935751 whereas the complainant never intended to invest his hard eared money in the share market.  Thereafter, inspite of repeated request and demands of the complainant, OPs failed to return the amount of complainant alongwith upto date interest as stated above.  Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 4 appeared and filed their written statement separately whereas Op No.5 already given up vide order dated 04.08.2014 being unnecessary party.

4.                     OP No. 1 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is abuse of law and process of Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has filed totally false and frivolous complaint with a view to harass and blackmail the OP No.1; complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint against the Op No.1; there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant; complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and on merit it has been stated that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the OPs No.2 to 4 in this complaint with malafide intention. It is wrong to allege that the OP No. 2 allured the complainant regarding deposit of amount with the Op No.3. In fact, the complainant is running a grocery shop and he is educated person and his wife is doing government job as teacher in Government School. The complainant and his wife are conversant with the functioning of Life Insurance Company. The complainant himself contacted the Op No.1 and requested for life insurance policy for him as well as for his wife. All the life insurance schemes/ polices were fairly discussed with the complainant and all the features were brought to the notice of the complainant. It was told to the complainant that there is three year locking period and prior to that period he cannot withdraw the amount and he has to deposit three yearly installments continuously. It was also told to the complainant that that he can revoke his life insurance policy within 15 days from the receipt of policy from OP No.3. The complainant received the policy from the company and go through the same but he did not opt to revoke the same within 15 days from the receipt of the same as he wanted to continue the same. Thereafter, the complainant has not deposited the 2^nd and 3^rd installments inspite of intimation and request letters sent by the Op No. 3 Company and ultimately the policy was lapsed. The complainant has leveled false allegations against the OP No.1 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.1.

5.                     OP No.2 filed his written statement by denying the facts mentioned in the complaint and stated that the complainant has impleaded him in this case as party with oblique motive and with the intention to harass him. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     OP No.3 Insurance Company filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the OP Insurance Company as no alleged request for surrender value or refund of permissible amount was ever received by OP No. 3 Insurance Company. The complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation as per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The policy in question was issued in July, 2009 strictly in accordance with the proposal dated 27.07.2009 made by the complainant himself and the original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the contract of insurance was duly dispatched to the complainant at the address given by him in proposal for insurance on 29.07.2009 vide speed post No. EP775262295IN and the same was admittedly received by the complainant. The complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct as he has failed to discharge his contractual obligations under the policy. The yearly premiums @ 99900/- were stipulated to be paid by the complainant without any obligation on the company to issue any notice thereof but he did not pay the yearly regular premiums due on 28.07.2010 and onwards knowing well the consequences of the non payment of regular premiums as per the contract of insurance. Thus, the policy in question lapsed w.e.f. 28.07.2010 due to non payment of premiums. The complainant has however, not made any efforts to get his policy revived during the revival period of 4 years from the date of first unpaid premium which would expire on 27.07.2014 and the complainant can still get his policy revived as per rules. The relevant clauses of policy terms and conditions under the heading Surrender Value & Surrender Charges” may kindly be referred to and the complainant be directed to submit the original policy bond, which is in his possession, with the Hon’ble Forum. The complainant himself proposed for the Unit Linked Regular Premium “Unit Gain Protection Plus” plan of the OP No.3 after fully understanding the features, benefits, charges, investment risks and terms and conditions of plan proposed for the said policy vide proposal dated 27.07.2009 and opted to pay regular yearly premium of Rs. 99,900/- for a term of 10 years. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the answering respondent and a policy bearing No. 0130935751 was issued to him. The original policy bond containing terms and conditions of the contract were admittedly received by the complainant and as per the schedule of the said policy bond, the yearly premiums were stipulated to be paid by the complainant without any obligation on the company to issue notices thereof as specified in the schedule of the policy bond. The complainant was offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation Period from the date of receipt of the policy bond to review the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance as per the Policy Holders’ Protections Regulation, 2002 and the said free clause was specifically mentioned in the proposal for insurance itself as a statutory provision to make the complainant aware of the cancellation option available to him if any of the alleged promises made at the time of solicitation of insurance were not the part of the policy document received by him and the said free look cancellation option was a part of terms and conditions of the policy document and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     OP No.4 filed its written statement and stated that the OP No.4 has no concern whatsoever with the business of the complainant and that of other OPs. The OP No.4 Bank has been illegally dragged in the present litigation. The OP No.4 Bank has nothing to do with the grievances of the complainant and no specific allegations and no specific relief has been claimed against the Op No.4 Bank. The OP No.4 Bank has no business to watch the investment of his customers or the bank has no business to see where the person is doing to invest and denied all the allegations leveled against OP No.4 Bank. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of account statement as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of initial unit statement as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

9.                     On the other hand, OPs No. 1, 2 and 4 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on dated 29.07.2016.

10.                   Counsel for the Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. as Annexure RW3/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 13.08.2015 written by complainant to the OP No.3 as Annexure R3/1, Photo copy of pass book of bank account of complainant as Annexure R3/2, Photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R3/3,Photo copy of  letter towards thanks for regular premium plan dated 27.07.2009 alongwith schedule as well as receipt and terms and conditions as Annexure R3/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.     

11.                   We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

12.                   It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Unit Link Insurance Policy “Unit Gain Protection Plus” bearing No. 0130935751 on 28.07.2009 and paid Rs. 99,900/- to the OP No.3 Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid only one installment of Rs. 99,900/- to the OP No. 3 Insurance Company during the first policy year. The only version of the complainant is that it was assured on behalf of the OP No.3 Insurance Company that after three years, if the complainant wish to withdraw the said policy, the OP Insurance Company will make the full amount alongwith interest but all the assurance given by the official of the OP Insurance Company turned out to be false and failed to refund the amount of Rs. 99,900/- invested by the complainant in the policy in question alongwith all the benefits.

13                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that policy in question was for the period of 10 years but the complainant paid only one yearly installment of Rs. 99,900/- and thereafter he failed to make the regular yearly installments and surrendered the policy and the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 54951/- stands already paid to the complainant and credited in his account bearing No. 07811000002557 vide UTR No. SIN00101Q8435877 dated 24.08.2015 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount stands received by the complainant without raising any protest towards full and final settlement of the permissible surrender value under the policy. Thus, the OP No.3 Insurance Company has discharged its contractual obligations under the policy strictly in accordance with the law and nothing more is payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the contract of the Insurance Policy. Further, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued that the complainant has invested his money in Unit Link Policy called Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Protection Plus just to gain profit. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed.

             Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

14.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure R3/4 bearing No. 0130935751 dated 28.07.2009, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Protection Plus in his name issued by the OP Insurance Company in the year 2009. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, (supra).  

15.                   Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. The same view has been held in case titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium.

16.                   Further, the complainant has received the permissible surrender value amounting to Rs. 54,951/- which stands already credited to his Punjab & Sind Bank Account No. 07811000002557 vide UTR No. SIN00101Q8435877 dated 24.08.2015 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount received by the complainant without raising any protest as has been mentioned in the affidavit Annexure RW3/A and the complainant has not denied the aforesaid version of the OP Insurance Company. It means the OP Insurance Company has discharged its contractual obligations under the policy in question.

17.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the OPs had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

18.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 27.02.2017

 

                                 (S.C.SHARMA )                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                  MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNANAGAR