Complaint filed on: 29-11-2010
Disposed on: 08-03-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2692/2010
DATED THIS THE 8th MARCH 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
E.V.Rajesh,
19, Market Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore -04
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd,
Rep. by its manager,
At No.47/1, 2nd Floor,
Subbarama Chetty Road,
Netkallappa circle,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-04
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that he had invested in a new Life Insurance Policy called a Unit Linked policy namely Capital Unit Gain Policy with the OP with annual premium of Rs.1,00,000=00 for a term of three years with three annual premium of Rs.1,00,000=00 each. That insurance premium paid is kept in the form of units, which are purchased on the basis of Net asset value of the fund as on particular day, when the premium is paid and when the life insurance wants to close the policy, the balance units available in the account of the insured will be sold at the rate prevailing net asset value. That during March-2009, when the third premium was due, he enquired with the OP over phone, who told him that, the third premium could be paid within six months that is within September 2009, that he paid the third premium on 16-9-2009. During March-2010, when he logged into his capital unit gain account online, he saw that the OP had debited his account on 28-4-2009 with 13580.5661 units for a value of Rs.1,30,590.86 at unit price of Rs.9,616=00 and credited with 6789.5941 units only for a value of Rs.95,000=00 at unit only for a value of Rs.95,000=00 at unit price 13.992. Latter, when he paid the premium, he was credited with 9333.2519 units for a value of Rs.1,30,590.86. Later, when he paid the premium, he was credited with 9333.2519 units for a value of Rs.1,30,590.86. Due to that, he has lost 6790.972 units for his no fault. That he raised his grievance with the OP on 21-3-2010, which is replied by the OP on 22-3-2010 regarding grace period for the payment of third premium and the complainant by referring to the conditions, with regard to the late paid premium has contended that the OP has taken arbitratory values and as the result, he has lost 6790.972 units and thus has prayed for a direction to the OP to credit back of 6789.5941 units and to cancel the insurance policy and to refund Rs.3,00,000=00 paid by him with interest and other reliefs.
2. OP has filed version through his advocate, admitting the complainant having taken a life insurance policy from them, for a period of three years, with annual three premiums of Rs.1,00,000=00 each. That the complainant was allotted units for investible amount, after taking into consideration the premium allocation charges which is mentioned in the policy document. Accordingly a unit account would be created, which shows the number of units held by the policyholder. The cost of a unit depends on a technical terminology known as Net Asset Value and differ depending upon the market conditions. Admitting that the complainant had paid the first premium amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 on 30-3-2007, out of which Rs.5,000=00 was deducted as allocation charges at 5% and a sum of Rs.95,000=00 has been used for purchase units of Rs.11,8450 per units and the complainant was allotted 8020.2617 units. That the complainant paid the second premium on 28-3-2008, as on 31-3-2008 the net asset value of that premium was Rs.13,5440 per units. After deducting Rs.5,000=00 towards allocation charges of Rs.95,000=00 used for purchase of Rs.13.5440 per units and the complainant was allotted 7014.1760 units. Then the complainant paid the third annual premium on 15-9-2009, it was utilized on 16-9-2009 by reviving the policy of the complainant and was allotted 6789.5941 units for a sum of Rs.95,000=00. The OP further contending about changes in the market value, the total number of units held by the complainant was 6789.5941 were allotted for the third premium paid plus 9333.2519 units, which was allotted to him towards lapsed fund value of Rs.1,30,590.86. As the result, the complainant had a total of 16,122.846 units. After reviving the policy, the complainant had a total of 16,122.846 units as on the date of his policy was revived and therefore denying any deficiency has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced copies of statements and copy of the policy document with copy of letter, he had addressed to OP. OP has produced a copy of statement of account of the complainant as on 22-12-2010. The counsel for the complainant has filed synopsis of written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the OP and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not crediting 6789.5941 units to his account and therefore he is entitled to get those units credited to his account, in the alternative for the refund premium amount of Rs.3,00,000=00 paid by him?.
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: The case of the complainant that, he had availed a Unit Linked Policy called “Capital Unit Gain Policy” from the OP for a period of three years with annual premium of Rs.1,00,000=00 each for investing the premium amount for purchase of units to have monitory gain in that investment is not in dispute. The complainant himself has contended that, he had paid the first premium and the second premium on time that is on 30-3-2007 and 28-3-2008 respectively, but delayed the payment of third premium.
7. The OP has produced a copy of the statement to show that out of the first premium paid on 30-3-2007, after deducting Rs.5,000=00 towards allocation charges invested Rs.95,000=00 in purchase of units at Rs.11.8450 per unit and allotted 8020.2617 units. Thereafter, after transacting with that premium amount deducted allocation and other charges and when the complainant paid the second premium on 28-3-2008 deducting Rs.5,000=00 towards allocation charges invested Rs.95,000=00 in purchase 7014.1760 units. It is further not in dispute that, the complainant did not pay the third premium in time and when he paid it, during September 2009, OP invested Rs.95,000=00 after deducting Rs.5,000=00 towards allocation charges, in purchase of 6789.5941 units. The OP has found from the detail of the account, after transacting with the units based on the market, shown the remaining units as 15330.2994 with units value of Rs.262995.89. The complainant except alleging that the OP has shown lesser unit value by debiting to his account has not attributed any error or irregularities committed by OP in showing the number of units and the units price as per the transaction as reflected in the account.
8. The complainant has come up with this complaint complaining deficiency in the service of OP by alleging that the OP has shown lesser units with prayer for crediting back 6789.5941 units should have pointed out to this forum, as to where the OP has erred in allocating lesser units and units value. The complainant has not pointed out violation of any terms and conditions of the policy or any wrong debiting the units. The complainant has not also invited our attention to any of the specific transaction which has been done by the OP arbitrarily, prejudicial to his interest. The complainant though has produced conditions of the policy, but has not been able to substantiate any violation of those conditions by the OP. Therefore the allegations of the complainant that the OP has shown 6790.972 units less, in our view do not amounts proving deficiency in the service of the OP. The complaint has therefore, in our view, has failed to substantiate his allegation against the OP and mere allegations of deficiency or short coming in the absence of proof is not sufficient to grant relief. Hence the complaint for want of proof of deficiency in service of the OP is liable to be dismissed. Hence we answer point No.1 in the Negative and pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 8th March 2011.
Member Member President
