Date of filing: 20-03-2014
Date of Disposal: 08-01-2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 8th day of January, 2015
C.C.NO.76/2014
Between:
- Smt.T.Vimalamma
W/o K.Sreeramulu
- K.Anil Kumar
S/o K.Sreeramulu
Both are residing at
D.No.1/1135-6/K4
Adapala Street,
Kadiri Town,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainants
Vs.
- M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
G.E.Plaza, Airport Road
Pune – 411 006.
- The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Hindupur Post,
Ananthapuramu District. ….. Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the complainants and the 1st opposite party is called absent and exparte and Sri J.Chittaranjan, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - The complainants (1) Smt.T.Vimalamma W/o K.Sreeramulu and (2) K.Anil Kumar S/o K.Sreeramulu, residing at Door No.1/1135-6/K4, Adapala Street, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuramu District have filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (1) M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory, G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune – 411 006 and (2) The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindupur Post, Ananthapuramu District to direct them to pay total amount of Rs.4,80,200/- towards deposits, interest, mental agony and costs of the complaint with the following few allegations that:
2. The complainant No.1 had made time deposit for Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.0128880557 dt.02-07-2009 in No.2 of the opposite party and also made Recurring Monthly Deposit vide receipt No.0130344682 dt.21-07-2009 for Rs.3,000/- in No.2 of the opposite party, but without knowledge of the complainants, the opposite parties converted the said Recurring Deposit into quarterly installments instead of monthly installments vide receipt No.0135293082 dt.07-10-2009 for Rs.3,000/- and 0131389322 dt.05-08-2009 for Rs.3,000/-. No.2 of the complainant had also made time deposit for Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.0131709726 dt.15-08-2009 and Rs.25,000/- and also Rs.25,000/- dt.26-09-2009 vide Time Deposit No.0135212802. Now the above said deposits were made with the instructions of the opposite parties for the purpose of No.1 complainant’s grandson’s admission into school after 3 years. The above deposits were made like in Post Office.
3. One K.Sreeramulu, who is the husband of No.1 of complainant and father of No.2 of the complainant worked as A.S.P.O at Postal Department at Hindupur and retired and settled at Kadiri Town, Ananthapuramu District. While this is so, when the Executive and Manager of Hindupur Branch of the institutions of the opposite parties came to Kadiri Town and taken the signatures of the complainants in the blank printed application forms marking ‘ x ‘ with the pencil during the course of their business, informing that they will get more interest than the post office after 3 years lock in period. In fact, the Marketing Executive and Manager have mislead the complainants taking advantage of the illiteracy of the complainants and induced them. The complainants have made the above fixed deposits but not with intent to take insurance policies from the opposite parties. But to the surprise of the complainants, they received Bajaj Insurance Policy Bonds. No.1 of the complainant shown the said policies to her husband, who is retired from service as A.S.P.O. and then her husband phoned to both of the opposite parties and told to Bajaj Office Manager concerned at Hindupur. Then the complainants sent letter through email stating that they have no need to take insurance policies when there are huge bonus i.e. 77% at Post Office and also requested to close the said deposited amounts and pay back the said amounts to the complainants. Then the Marketing Executive at Hindupur Branch told the complainants that the said deposits are Capital Protection Funds and now 3 years locking period like in Post Office and hence the complainants may take back after 3 years. The opposite parties are replied to the complainants that as per terms and conditions only the opposite parties are acting. But the complainants stated that they have taken amounts as Fixed Deposits but not insurance policies. Hence the complainants requested the opposite parties to conduct open enquire of the Marketing Executive and the said Manager and the truth will come out, but the opposite parties are not doing the same to the reasons best known to the opposite parties. The opposite parties recently sent two cheques worth Rs.16,125/-, but the complainants blindly refused to receive the same and sent back the said two cheques with e-mail letter under registered post to the opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties are liable to pay the amounts mentioned above together with up-to-date interest at the contract rate of 24% p.a.
4. Since the opposite parties did not turn up the complainants got issued legal notice dt.02-07-2013 and the said notice is served on the opposite parties 1 & 2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., got issued a reply notice to the complainants counsel dt.22-07-2013with all false allegations and also stating that the policy of the complainants bearing Nos.0135293082 and 0130344682 have been terminated due to non-payment of regular premiums during the revival period of two/three years from the due date of the last unpaid premium and paid the surrender value of the policy. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount as claimed by the complainants and also to direct the opposite parties to pay future interest till the date of payment from the complaint and other reliefs.
5. The 1st opposite party remained exparte.
6. On the other hand the 2nd opposite party filed counter denying the above allegations of the complainant except admitting that the 1st complainant had made time deposit of Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.0128886557 dt.02-07-2009 in No.2 of the opposite party and also made a recurring monthly deposit vide receipt No.0130344682 dt.21-07-2009 for Rs.3,000/- in No.2 of the opposite party . Further the opposite parties denied that the above said deposits were made with the instructions of the opposite parties for the purpose of No.1 complainant’s grand-son’s admission into school after 3 years and the above deposits were made like in Post Office. Further the opposite parties contended that K.Sreeramulu, who is the husband of the 1st complainant and father of 2nd complainant and the said Sreeramulu and his avocation are not to the knowledge of the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued suitable reply. The complainants filed this unjust complaint to harass the opposite parties for wrongful gain knowing well. There is no cause of action for filing of this complaint and mere issuing of legal notice does not create any cause of action. Even there is no plea of deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and hence there is no cause of action. The contract of insurance is only concluded when the policyholder receives copy of the insurance policy issued from the Insurance Company. As per the terms and conditions of the policies that in case the policyholder if he was not satisfied with the policies or any of its terms and conditions of the policies, within 15 days of the receipt of the policy, on exercising the option of ‘ free look ‘ for the cancellation of the policy, the premium paid by the policy-holder would be refunded to the policyholder. Whereas the complainants did not opt for the ‘ free look ‘ option and cancelled the policies and it was deemed that the terms and conditions of the policies were accepted by the policyholders i.e. complainants. The terms and conditions are also approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). The claim of refund of policies amount with interest is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policies. The claim of the complainants is totally false and they are not entitled for the same as there is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and more-over there is fault with the complainants and they are not in continuation of paying premiums to the said policies of the complainants except two those are in lapse and the remaining policies were foreclosed and the said amounts were paid by cheques. Hence, prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. In order to establish the above rivalry contentions, both of them adduced evidence. On behalf of the complainants, the 1st complainant Smt.T.Vimalamma is examined as PW1 and relied upon the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.02-07-2009 for Rs.50,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 1st complainant. Ex.A2 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.21-07-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 1st complainant. Ex.A3 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.05-08-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 1st complainant. Ex.A4 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.07-10-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 1st complainant. Ex.A5 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.26-09-2009 for Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 2nd complainant. Ex.A6 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.15-08-2009 for Rs.50,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the 2nd complainant. Ex.A7 is photo copy of e-mail letter dt.22-05-2013 sent by K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties. Ex.A8 is office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2013 got issued by the counsel for the complainants to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Ex.A9 is reply notice dt.22-07-2013 got issued by the opposite parties to the counsel for the complainants. Ex.A10 is postal receipt dt.02-07-2013. Ex.A11 is postal acknowledgment signed by the 2nd opposite party.
8. On the other hand, the 1st opposite party remained exparte. The 2nd opposite party alone is contested in this complaint. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, U.Madan Mohan Reddy, Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu District is examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
Heard both sides
9. The points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the
opposite parties 1 & 2 against the complainants 1 & 2 ?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim as prayed for ?
3. To what relief?
10. POINT NOS.1 & 2 - In order to establish the contentions of the complainants, the 1st complainant Smt.T.Vimalamma has filed chief affidavit and the same is treated as PW1 and also placed reliance on Ex.A1 to A11. The testimony of PW1 on her chief affidavit goes to show that “ No.1 of them had made time deposit of Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.0130344682 dt.02-07-2009 in No.2 of the opposite party and also made a recurring monthly deposit vide receipt No.0130344682 dt.21-07-2009 for Rs.3,000/- in No.2 of the opposite party, but without knowledge of her , the opposite parties converted the said recurring deposit into quarterly installments instead of monthly installments vide receipt No.0135293082 dt.07-10-2009 for Rs.3,000/- and receipt No.0131389322 dt.05-08-2009 for Rs.3,000/-. No.2 of the complainant had also made time deposit for Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.0131709726 dt.15-08-2009 and Rs.25,000/- and also Rs.25,000/- dt.26-09-2009 vide Time Deposit No.0135212802. The above said deposits were made with the instructions of the opposite parties for the purpose of her grandson’s admission into school after 3 years. The above deposits were made like in Post Office. The first insurance receipt issued instead of term deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.50,000/- dt.02-07-2009 is marked as Ex.A1. The First Insurance Receipt issued instead of Recurring Deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.3,000/- is marked as Ex.A2. The First Insurance Receipt issued instead of Recurring Deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.3,000/- dt.05-08-2009 is marked as Ex.A3. The First Insurance Receipt issued instead of Recurring Deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.3,000/- dt.07-10-2009 is marked as Ex.A4. The First Insurance Receipt issued instead of Recurring Deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.25,000/- dt.26-09-2009 is marked as Ex.A5. The Frist Insurance Receipt issued instead of Recurring Deposit of Bajaj Allianz for Rs.50,000/- dt.15-08-2009 is marked as Ex.A6.”
11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted at the time of arguments that in the chief affidavit of the PW1 by oversight the receipt No. of Ex.A1 was mentioned as 0130344682 instead of 0128880557. However Ex.A1 document is filed in support of his version and the same may be considered by rectifying the said typographical mistake in mentioning the receipt date of Ex.A1 in the chief affidavit of PW1 as it is only an oversight and typographical mistake. The above argument of the counsel for the complainants cannot be ruled out in view of Ex.A1, which contains receipt No. correctly.
12. Further the testimony of PW1 on her chief affidavit goes to show that “ while this is so, when the Executive and Manager of Hindupur Branch of the institutions of the opposite parties came to Kadiri Town and taken the signatures of them in the blank printed application forms marking ‘ x ‘ with the pencil during the course of their business, informing that they will get more interest than the post office after 3 years lock in period. In fact, the Marketing Executive and Manager have mislead them taking advantage of their illiteracy and induced them. They have made the above fixed deposits but not with intent to take insurance policies from the opposite parties. But to their surprise, they received Bajaj Insurance Policy Bonds. Then her husband telephoned to both of the opposite parties and also informed to Hindupur Branch and he immediately telephoned to both of the opposite parties and told to Bajaj Office Manager concerned at Hindupur that when he was in service, he issued the Postal Life Insurance to all the Govt. Employees with bonus rate of 77% and for others at the rate of 50% per annum and he secured nearly one crore PLI/RPI Policies and as such there is no need to have insurance at Bajaj Company. Then her husband on her behalf sent letter through e-mail stating that they have no need to take insurance policies when there are huge bonus i.e. 77% at Post Office and they also requested to close the said deposited amounts and pay back the said amounts to them. Then the Marketing Executive at Hindupur Branch told her that the said deposits are Capital Protection Funds and now 3 years locking period like in Post Office and hence she may take back after 3 years. But the opposite parties are replied to her that as per terms and conditions only the opposite parties are acting. But she stated that because of the Marketing Executive of the opposite parties, who mislead and told to her and taken the amounts as fixed deposits, but not insurance policies. Hence she requested the opposite parties to conduct open enquire of the Marketing Executive and the said Manager and the truth will come out, but the opposite parties are not doing the same to the reasons best known to the opposite parties. The opposite parties recently sent two cheques worth Rs.16,125/-, but she blindly refused to receive the same and sent back the said two cheques with e-mail letter under registered post to the opposite parties. The returned two cheques dt.19-04-2013 are marked as Ex.A7. Thus the opposite parties are liable to pay the amounts mentioned above together with up-to-date interest at the contract rate of 24% p.a. Since herself is illiterate person and hence all correspondence in this regard had made by her husband on her behalf. Since the opposite parties did not turn up, she got issued legal notice dt.02-07-2013 and the said notice is served on the opposite parties 1 & 2. Copy of lawyer’s notice is marked as Ex.A8. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., got issued a reply notice to her counsel dt.22-07-2013 with all false allegations and also stating that the policy bearing Nos.0135293082 and 0130344682 have been terminated due to non-payment of regular premiums during the revival period of two/three years from the due date of the last unpaid premium and paid the surrender value of the policy. Reply notice is marked as Ex.A9. The two postal receipts are marked as Ex.A10. The postal two acknowledgments are marked as Ex.A11.”
13. On the other hand, the testimony of RW1 on behalf of the opposite parties, on chief affidavit goes to show the total denial of the complainants’ version contending that “The contract of insurance is only concluded when the policyholder receives copy of the insurance policy issued from the Insurance Company. As per the terms and conditions of the policies that in case the policyholder if he was not satisfied with the policies or any of its terms and conditions of the policies, within 15 days of the receipt of the policy, on exercising the option of ‘free look’ for the cancellation of the policy, the premium paid by the policy-holder would be refunded to the policyholder. Whereas the complainants did not opt for the ‘free look’ option and cancelled the policies and it was deemed that the terms and conditions of the policies were accepted by the policyholders i.e. complainants. The terms and conditions are also approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). The claim of refund of policies amount with interest is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policies. “
14. So in view of the above testimony of RW1 it appears that the complainants have received premium receipts under Ex.A1 to A6 from the opposite parties. That too on 02-07-2009, 21-07-2009, 05-08-2009 and 07-10-2009 i.e. Ex.A1 and A4 by the 1st complainant. Ex.A5 dt.26-09-2009 and Ex.A6 dt.15-08-2009 were received by the complainant No.2 as premium receipts only. When the 1st complainant has received Ex.A1 and A2 premium receipts towards Insurance Policies, then what made the 1st and 2nd complainants again to deposit the amounts under Ex.A3 to A6 subsequently with the 2nd opposite party instead of getting clarification of Ex.A1 and A2, when the intention of the complainants 1 & 2 have deposited the said amounts towards recurring deposits instead of insurance policies by way of quarterly installments instead of monthly installments. But both the complainants were kept quiet and simply received Ex.A1 to A6 till 07-10-2009.
15. Further the testimony of PW1 on her chief affidavit is silent with regard to date when her husband K.Sreeramulu telephoned to the opposite parties and informed to Hindupur Branch that when he was in service as A.S.P.O. at Postal Department , Hindupur, he issued Postal Life Insurance to all the Govt. Employees with bonus rate of 77% and for others at the rate of 50% per annum and he secured nearly one crore PLIC/RPI Policies and as such there is no need to have insurance at the Bajaj Company and further on what date the husband of the 1st complainant sent letter through e-mail stating that they have no need to take insurance policies when there are huge bonus i.e. 77% at Post Office and also requested to close the said deposited amounts and pay back the said amounts to them. The burden lies on the complainants to establish that the complainants 1 & 2 were misled by the Marketing Executive of the opposite parties in converting their fixed deposits into insurance policies. But the documents filed by the complainants 1 & 2 i.e. Ex.A1 to A6 go to show that the opposite parties have issued the said receipts to the complainants under the premium receipts only towards insurance policy but not towards recurring deposit bonds. Inspite of the said receipts, the complainants kept quiet without questioning the opposite parties soon after receipt of the above premium receipts.
16. In this regard the learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party contended that “ at the time of arguments that the contract of insurance is only concluded when the policyholder receives copy of the insurance policy issued from the Insurance Company. As per the terms and conditions of the policies that in case the policyholder if he was not satisfied with the policies or any of its terms and conditions of the policies, within 15 days of the receipt of the policy. On exercising the option of ‘free look’ for the cancellation of the policy, the premium paid by the policy-holder would be refunded to the policyholder. Here the complainants did not opt for the ‘free look’ option and cancelled the policies. So it was deemed that the terms and conditions of the policies were accepted by the policyholder i.e. complainants, which are approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). Hence the case of the complainants is totally false and they are not entitled for the claim.”
17. The above arguments of learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party cannot be ruled out because of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case surprisingly the policy terms were not placed before this Forum by either of the parties. But the complainants have filed the premium receipts, which were issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants 1 & 2. So basing on the said receipts, it is understood that the complainants have deposited the amounts covered under the above receipts with the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainants, the said amount is paid by them towards recurring deposits, but whereas the contention of the opposite parties is that the said deposits were paid by the complainants towards insurance policies. So only they have issued premium receipts under Ex.A1 to A6 to the complainants respectively. Now in view of the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A6, it is understood that whatever the amounts deposited by the complainants were adjusted towards insurance policies, but not towards recurring deposits. There is no written document filed by the complainants that they have taken recurring deposits only from the opposite parties. But the complainant’s have filed Ex.A1 to A6 in this complaint to show that their amounts were adjusted towards premium of the insurance policies by the 2nd opposite party that would be done due to misled of the Marketing Executive and Manager of the opposite parties. In order to establish the said contention of the complainants, the terms of the policy were not placed before this Forum by the complainants, except oral testimony of PW1 on her chief affidavit, there is no documentary proof in support of the said oral contention of the PW1. On the other hand the very documents filed by PW1 Ex.A1 to A6 are going against the very route of the case of the complainants. More over the complainants are at liberty to opt for ‘free look’ for the cancellation of the policy with the opposite parties and get the amount to be refunded within stipulated period of the policy terms, but the complainants failed to do so. No doubt Ex.A7 reveals returned two cheques by the complainants and Ex.A8 is lawyer’s notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties. Ex.A9 is reply notice by the opposite parties. Ex.A10 is postal receipt. But none of the documents Ex.A7 to A11 do not improve the case of the complainants in view of Ex.A1 to A6. Moreover as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no plea taken by the complainants that there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the entire complaint, any amount of evidence without plea has no consequences. The above argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties appears to be having force because of the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainants failed to establish deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties as discussed above. Hence there are no merits in the case of the complainants and as such the complainants are not entitled for the claim as prayed for. Hence we hold these two points accordingly against the complainants and in favour of the opposite parties.
14. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 8th of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY NO.2
PW1 – Smt.T.Vimalamma, 1st complainant RW1 - U.Madan Mohan Reddy, Branch Manager, Bajaj
Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindupur (2nd
opposite Party)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.02-07-2009 for Rs.50,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 1st complainant.
2. Ex.A2 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.21-07-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 1st complainant.
3. Ex.A3 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.05-08-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 1st complainant.
4. Ex.A4 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.07-10-2009 for Rs.3,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 1st complainant.
5.Ex.A5 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.26-09-2009 for Rs.25,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 2nd complainant.
6.Ex.A6 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.15-08-2009 for Rs.50,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the 2nd complainant.
7.Ex.A7 - Photo copy of email letter sent by K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties 1 & 2.
8.Ex.A8 - Office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2013 got issued by the complainants to the
opposite parties 1 & 2.
9.Ex.A9 - Reply notice dt.22-07-2013 got issued by the opposite parties to the counsel
for the complainants.
10.Ex.A10 - Postal receipt dt.02-07-2013.
11.Ex.A11 - Postal acknowledgment signed by the 2nd opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
