Order No. 8 dt. 22/06/2017
The fact of the complainant in brief is that the complainant, a retired Gynecologist having age 83 years was willing to undertake a Pension Scheme Policy with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited by one time payment of Rs 2,00,000/-by issuing a cheque against her savings bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Salt Lake . According to the complainant, her niece, Miss Sayoni Basu, CE-60, Sector-I, Salt Lake City,Kolkata-700064 had been chosen as nominee of the policy. After two weeks complainant contacted the agent of the policy seeking delivery of the policy certificate. But the agent asked her to wait for another ten to fifteen days. After elapsing the said period, approximately one month, the complainant came to know that the policy (no.0325817744) had been issued in favour of Miss Sayoni Basu and that had been despatched at the address at CF-60, Sector-I, Kolkata and consequentlypolicy intender or the policy owner remained in the dark about it’s birth or whereabouts. The complainant thereafter pressed the o.p. to refund the money or to issue fresh policy in her favour. Accordingly complainant submitted a complaint but the o.p. had declined to return the policy in her favour on the ground that the application was made beyond free look period. Therefore the issued policy cannot be changed in any manner in her favour. Being aggrieved with the activities of the insurance company the complainant lodged this complaint seeking remedies and relief.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant . Being an educated person the proposer had clearly mentioned the name of the proposer as well as the address of the proposer. The address of the proposer is mentioned as CF60, Block – CE, Sector-I, Salt Lake. The address proof of the proposer in the form of Voter’s ID Card had been annexed to the proposal form by the proposer MissSayoniBasu. It is evident that the proposal was not made by the complainant as alleged. The complainant thus has no locus standi to make out any complaint against the insurance company and thus this case is not maintainable. The insurance company cannot act beyond the declaration of the proposer. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is an abuse of the process of law. Hence, it is humbly prayed by the op that District Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs .
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether there was any deficiency in service o the part of the o.p.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Complainant submitted that she paid the premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque no.03260010003080 dt.25.11.2015 through savings Bank A/c at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Salt Lake City Branch and that amount was credited in favour of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd on 27.11.2015. Complainant had not received the policy within fifteen days and contacted her agent MrPalashMondal (Mob. No.7890996978) who persuaded the complainant to wait for another 10-15 days and the said agent had not been traced out thereafter. The locas standi of the said agent is ambiguous as it appears from the proposal form. According to the proposal form it is evident that the name of the agent is MrsTanwisikhaChakranborty. Complainant intended to have the policy in her name with MsSayoniBasu as nominee.
It is evident that payee of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has no place in the policy issued by the company and Miss SayoniBasu took the place of Mrs Samira Basu.The policy which was issued in the name of MsSayoniBasu having policy number 0325817744, product name- Bajaj Allianz lifelong assure, policy terms- 57 years, Maturity date- 22.11.2072, sum assured Rs.11,07,925 with annual premium payment of Rs.199999.36 for 10 years with name of the nominee MrsSamitaBasu, mother of the policy holder.
The complaint submitted byDr Samira Basu (the complainant) has no relation withthe policy no.0325817744 in the eye of the policy issuing company (op) as the said policy has been issued according to the proposal form received by the insurance company and the o.p. has no liability to entertain the letter of cancellation submitted by DrBasu. On reporting about the non receipt of the policy bond or about the gross mistake as to the name of the policy holder and in correct address of SayoniBasu, the complainant was assured by the officers of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd that they will either try to recover the bond or arrange for refund of the money to the complainant. Complainant was asked to submit a complaint by the mother of MissSayoniBasu to apprise the mistakes committed by the company. The complainant has raised the allegation that documents annexed to the W S , is a forged and fabricated documents which was not signed and/or executed by the complainant or by SayaniBasu but the same has been fabricated with a view to hide the mischief. The intention of the complainant thus leads to mis-management of the policy breeding section of the company i.e. insurance agents of the co.
Complainant has intended to purchase pension policy by one time payment of Rs.2,00,000/- but the policy which has been issued is lifelong assure, policy term 57 years, maturity date 22.11.2072 with annual payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for 10 years. The policy product is not, at all, tallied with the complainant’s endowment rather it is diametrically opposite product in respect of old age lady of 83 years
Again, the policy was beyond the reach of the complainant or her proposed nominee i.e Miss Sayoni Basu, during the free look period of 15 days. Again for assimilation of aftermath of the new product by the the old lady having age 83 years the agent disappeared during the next 15 days from the field. The new agent Mrs Tanwisikha Chakraborty appeared in the field in place of Mr Palas Mondal and such appearance or disappearance had been occurred beyond the knowledge of the complainant whose hard earned money had been utilized for the purpose of obtaining commission leaving her in helpless position with perpetual mental agony at the age over eighty years.
The policy form signed previously by the complainant had been displaced by the new policy form on the basis of which the o.p. had wanted to win the game in their favour for drawing permanent annual return for a period of 57 years with agent’s commission as usual.
Thus, vicarious liability of the company can not be avoided by the company. There is gross negligence on the part of the company by deficiency in service and by misappropriation of simplicity as well as helplessness old lady by their agent. Therefore, we hold the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief.
Hence, ordered.
That the case no.166/2016 be allowed on contest with cost.
The o.p. is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from 27.11.2015 upto the date of communication of this order along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
