1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that the agent of the Ops requested him to invest in a new Plan with insurance cover namely Bajaj Allianz Century Plus launched by the Ops which is a one time deposit and after 5 years the complainant will get a good amount.  The agent of the Ops also handed over some printed documents to the complainant regarding different features of the policy in question.  Being convinced, the complainant agreed to go ahead with the proposal and paid Rs.50, 000/- along with required documents to the agent of the Ops.  It is submitted that the Ops issued policy bond with risk dt.07.01.2008 for a sum assured of Rs.2.50 lacs on the life of the complainant vide Policy No.0081297974 but from the policy documents the complainant could know that the above policy is not one time deposit and he is to pay Rs.50, 000/- every year for 10 years and the maturity date is 07.01.2018.  On going through the terms and conditions of the Policy, the complainant met the authorised persons and agent of the Ops and expressed his inability to deposit the premium every year and he is being deceived by the Ops and their agents while filing proposal.  The complainant further submitted that the henchmen of Ops assured him that the single premium is sufficient and will fetch a good return after 5 years but the Ops have sent a cheque dt.10.01.13 for Rs.32, 389/- to the complainant with a letter stating that the policy has been terminatd due to non payment of regular premium and the cheque amount is the surrender value of the deposit.  It is also further submitted that the complainant approached the OP.1 and its agent who did not listen and expressed their inability and hence the complainant wrote a request letter for refund of his money.  The Ops on 19.7.14 vide Complaint No.BWC-53397591 issued a letter stating that the grievance of the complainant will be resolved within 10 working days from the date of complaint but in vain till filing of this case.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the Bajaj Allianz Century Plus Policy vide No.0081297974 dt.07.01.2008 issued in vaour of the complainant on deposit of 1^st premium of Rs.50, 000/- for a sum assured of Rs.2, 50,000/-.  The Ops contended that this case is barred by limitation as cause of action arose on 30.12.2007 whereas the petition was filed during the year, 2015.  It is contended that after going through the contentions of proposal form, the complainant has signed the same and had availed the policy after agreeing to its terms.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms of the policy then he might have requested for free look cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receiving the policy documents.  It is further contended that the complainant has failed and neglected to pay renewal premiums and hence the policy issued to him was treated to be lapsed and foreclosed for non payment of renewal premium.  The Ops also further contended that after lapse of policy and its foreclosure, there exists no relationship with the complainant.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective authorised agents and perused the documents available on record.

4.                     The Ops through their counter submitted that the subject policy was issued in favour of the complainant during the month of January, 2008 and if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant ought to have approached the Forum within 2 years from the date of issue of the policy.  Failure on the part of the complainant to do so leads the present case for dismissal on the point of limitation.  Before going to the other merits of the case, we are inclined to decide whether the present case is hit under limitation.  The complainant through a petition dt.8.01.16 stated that the Ops have dispatched the cheque on 31.01.2013 and the same has been received by the complainant on 08.2.2013.  The complainant further stated that this case ought to have been filed on or before 08.2.2015 but the complainant was little bit slow for the latches on the part of the Ops.  It is seen that this case has been filed on 26.2.2015.  We have heard from the parties on the point of limitation.  This 10 days delay in filing of this case was under our consideration.  It was seen that the Ops have never denied regarding approach of the complainant to them to get back the rest of his dues.  The reply dt.19.7.14 of the Ops clearly proves that after prolonged oral complaints, the complainant has written letter to the Ops.  The Ops have also assured through their reply to resolve the issue within 10 working days but in vain.  After issue of cheque of Axis Bank, Pune dt.10.01.2013 by the Ops, the relationship with the complainant by the Ops did not over.  Moreover, the Cheque has been dispatched by the Ops on 31.1.2013 and the same has been received by the complainant on 08.02.2013 and definitely it would have been taken at least 15 days for collection of cheque amount from Pune branch of Axix Bank Ltd.   Hence in our opinion, the delay of 16 days is properly explained by the complainant and considering different aspects of this case, the condonable delay of 16 days in filing this case can not be terms as time barred case and as such this case is within its limitation.

5.                     While coming to the merits of this case, it is seen that the proposal and premium has been received by the Ops and the policy bond was issued in favour of the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that he gave proposal with single deposit being influenced by the agent of the Ops for good return and he approached the Ops for cancellation of the policy as he was not comfort with the terms of the policy.  He being convinced with the request of the Ops and their agent remained with the policy but after 5 years the Ops voluntarily foreclosed the policy and Rs.32, 389/- was offered to him.

6.                     The Ops stated that the complainant opted insurance policy and after deposit of 1^st premium and required documents, the policy was issued for 10 years with annual mode of payment.  They also provided free look period of 15 days during which the complainant had option either to continue or to apply for closure of the policy.  During said period as no correspondence was received from him, it deemed that the policy was continuing.  As the complainant did not pay regular premium, the policy remained lapse and it was foreclosed after 5 years and the value thereof was paid to him and hence the complainant has no right to claim anything more from the Ops.

7.                            The complainant on the other hand submitted that before proposal, the agent and representative of the Ops approached him and stated that Century Plus Scheme is one time deposit and shall give benefits to the complainant minimum after 3 years of the policy.  They also handed over their advertisement copies and another document called ‘Investment Insight’ to the complainant and in their Advertisement page it was clearly mentioned that “Your fund shall continue to grow and would be payable at the end of 5^th policy year, even if you are unable to pay future premium”.  The complainant in support of his submissions also filed the copy of advertisement and other documents issued by the Ops for advertisement of their Company product.  Perused the said advertisement copies available on record and found that the corresponding plan has 98% allocation and average fund performance is more than 50% in a year.  Therefore, the Ops assured 50% growth on deposits every year.  From the face of that advertisement it was ascertained that even one time deposit or one term deposit is enough and the growth rate of the scheme is very high and the same growth rate is applicable to all investors including the present complainant.  But we found the foreclosure value received by the complainant is very negligible in this case.  On the above matter, w3e can easily say that, the agent of the Ops can not for such a massive advertisement for the Company without the knowledge of the Ops.  The Ops also disowned the advertisement papers available on record.

7.                     The complainant stated that as per advertisement and assurances he deposited money with the Ops along with the proposal form but after issuing bond the Ops are blowing hot and cold at the same time.  Now it is to be seen as to which fact the complainant should belief, the advertisement and assurances offered prior to proposal or the letter issued by the Ops after acceptance of proposal.  It is seen that the complainant believing the advertisements and assurance of the Ops has deposited the money.  After receipt of bond, he also contacted the agent for return of the policy and getting full assurances from the agent of the Ops, he has not cared to the contents of that letter issued by the Ops and remained with the policy.  As per contents of said advertisement and assurances of the Ops, it is seen that the fund has not grown at all.  Rather the complainant has sustained loss due to such misleading advertisement and false assurances of the Ops.

8.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the Ops have given false assurances and also issued misleading advertisements, the copy of which is available on record which in our opinion amounts to serious unfair trade practice for which the complainant sustained loss after remaining full 5 years with the OPs.  This type of advertisement by the Companies is common now a day in order to attract to customers for investment of their hard earned money but the people should refrain from believing those misleading advertisements before falling prey at their hands.  In the above case, the complainant also suffered in the same manner and the Ops should not run their business adopting such unfairness.

9.                     From the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the Ops through misleading advertisement and giving false assurances have obtained the proposal and issued policy bond but later on under the guise of their so called terms and conditions of the policy, they are sucking blood of the investors unlike the present complainant for no fault of the complainant.  This hidden agenda of the Ops is against the public policy and public good.    In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for getting back its deposit in all fairness with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit in the best interest of justice.  Due to above action of the Ops, the  complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which, he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant but the complainant is certainly entitled for cost of this litigation and we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost will be just and proper.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.01.20108 till the date of foreclosure dt.10.01.2013 minus the foreclosure value already paid to the complainant and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)