Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/100

Mrs. Preeti Jagwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                          

                                              C.C. Case  No.100/ 2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.,                                    Member.

            Mrs.Preeti Jagwani, At: C/o Mahadev Das, New Colony, P.S.Rayagada ,Dist.          Rayagada-765001,Odisha.

                                                                                                            …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1.         The Branch  Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd.,  At/Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.

2.         The  General Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,              G.E. Plaza, Air Port Road,Yerawada,Pune,411006.

                …..…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: V.Avtar, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

The case of the complainant is that he has deposited a sum of Rs.99,000/- on dt.28.12.2007  for five years and the O.P issued relevant documents. After five years the O.p sent a cheque of Rs.30,000/-  and said the policy is now completed. The O.p promised to pay minimum of 15.7%  and the complainant simply believed them and invested  the said amount  but the O.P betrayed and cheated the complainant. Hence, prayed to direct the O.ps to refund  Rs.99,000/- along with interest. 

 Being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their  counsel  and  file written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The O.ps  submitted that  the complainant was issued with policy vide Policy No.0080653788 which commences from 28/12/2007 with a frequency of premium payment due annually and the due date of such payments was every December of the year and that the date of maturity was 28/12/2017 and  the last due date of payment  of premium was 28/12/2016 and the sum assured was Rs.4,95,000/- but the complainant failed to comply with the premium she is supposed to pay in time.  As the complainant has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the policy for which the complainant is entitled only Rs.30,000/- which was sent to her by the company already. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint at the case is devoid of any merits.

It is the cardinal principle of insurance law that the insurer is in the position of a trustee as it is managing the common fund for and on behalf of the community of policy holders. It has to ensure that nobody is allowed to take undue advantage of the arrangement. That means the management of the insurance business requires care to prevent entry(into group) of people  whose risks are not of the same kind as well as paying claims on losses that are not accidental. The Management of life insurance companies are required to keep this aspect in mind and make all its decisions in  ways that benefit  the community. This applies also to its investments.  That is why successful insurance companies would not be found investing in speculative ventures. The life insurance policy is a contract, in terms of the Indian Contract Act.  A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do, or not do, so as to create a legally binding relationship. Here in this case the complainant was asked to pay one time premium of Rs.99,000/- by the agent explaining the benefits contained therein and the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing and asked the proposer/complainant to sign on the dotted lines.  The declaration form filled in this case also written by the agent and obtained the signature thereon.  The agent’s responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/s 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agent has failed to discharge the duty as an agent and in order to get his income as commission has falsely represented the rural folks to divert their money. Hence the O.p has clearly violated the norms issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the O.P is liable to pay the amount paid as premium to the complainant.  In this case the surrender value far below  their amount deposited with the O.p.  The investment is made by the O.ps for the profit and not by the insurer.  Hence the advise given by the agent and  obtaining a form wherein the risk factor is transferred  in favour of the insurer’s is definitely coming under the purview of unfair trade practice.

When a rural folk invest the money with the assurance of the agent in the insurance and when she came to know that the above investment is not yielding any profit even after years and as such the above investment brought by the agent and accepted by the O.P is not with any intention to give any economic protection but with an intention to grab the money of the rural folks. Hence the plea of the O.ps can not be accepted.

In view of the discussion above, it is found to be  an unfair trade  practice made by the agent and O.Ps.  The O.Ps  have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural folk as seen from the counter and as such the complainant is entitled to get  refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant in the said scheme so as to enable them to invest the same with their choice.

We have gone through the complaint petition and documents available in the record. This forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus M/s Sukhadham India Pvt. Ltd.,2011(1) CPR 191 such as :- “ Insurance Company must settle claim without delay”. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.

Hence it is ordered.

                                                                         ORDER

                        In the result the complaint petition is allowed on contest. We ordered  the O.ps to refund the entire deposited amount  after deducting the part payment made by the O.P  to the complainant and to pay interest @ Rs.9% per annum on the entire amount from the date of respective deposit till realization.. We are further ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost. All the payment must be made through the Forum only.

                        The O.Ps are directed to make the aforesaid payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceeding U/s 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 14^th of July ,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

 

By the complainant:

1.      Copy of first premium receipt.

2.      Copy of Proposal form

By the O.Ps. Nil

 

 

                                                                                                 President