BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Harkanwal Kaur wife of Sh.Jagdish Singh, resident of House No.3131/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.215-217 (4^th floor) Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.       The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Jagdish Singh Tanwar, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for the OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

               By this common order, we are disposing of 2 connected complaint cases, as detailed below, as all are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.

2.                     The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No. 448 of 2011 – Harkanwal Kaur Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited.

3.           In short, the complainant took a Life Insurance Policy from the OPs, commencing from 1.10.2005 for Rs.1,25,000/- against policy No.0010837442 and paid three annual installments of Rs.25,000/- each for three years.  She paid total sum of Rs.75,000/-. It has been stated that as per Clause 6 of the policy document, if the installments are paid continuously for three years, the policy will not lapse and the amount will not be forfeited. In October, 2010, the complainant made a request to the OPs to make payment of the policy amount, but she was advised to submit the bank account number and also get her signatures attested from the bank authorities, which she did and thereafter submitted the requisite information. As per the complainant, the OPs instead of transferring the amount to the bank account of the complainant, a cheque No.852690 for Rs.58,916/- drawn by the Standard Chartered Bank, Pune was issued and a sum of Rs.16,084/- was forfeited, without giving any detail/reason. The complainant deposited the cheque in his bank account but the bank has debited a sum of Rs.50/- against his account on account of attestation charges etc. It is further the case of the complainant that she suffered a loss of Rs.16,134/-(Rs.16084/-+Rs.50/-)-during the period of 5 years, due to the lapse on the part of the OPs. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 7.5.2011 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

4.           OPs No.1 and 2 filed the joint reply, wherein, it took the preliminary objections vis-à-vis complaint is barred by limitation and territorial jurisdiction were raised. It has been pleaded that as per the proposal form, the OPs issued the policy to the complainant and if she was dissatisfied with the said terms & conditions of the policy, she would have given written notice to the OPs to cancel the policy within the Free Look Period of 15 days but she did not do so. On merits, it has been stated that on the basis of the proposal form, ‘Unit Gain’ policy No.0010837442 was issued and the original policy bond containing terms & conditions was received by the complainant. The schedule of the policy bond clearly indicates that the premium is to be paid for 6 years. The yearly premium of Rs.25,000/- was stipulated to be paid by the complainant but she paid only three yearly premiums and did not pay premium due as on 1.10.2008 and onwards. The surrender request has been processed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. It has been denied that the complainant was not informed about the policy terms and conditions.  Each and every feature, benefit and terms & conditions of the policy were expressly mentioned in the policy bond. The policy bond clearly indicates that she had purchased a Unit Linked Policy and investment risk is to be borne by the policyholder only. It has been pleaded that no protest was lodged by the complainant at the time of receiving the surrender value. It has been further pleaded that the market value of funds depends upon the fund performance and no amount was ever guaranteed. It has been denied that the OPs forfeited the amount of Rs.16,084/- and instead the surrender value was rightly paid to the complainant, in accordance with the terms & conditions of the contract. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

5.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.           We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

7.           The case of the complainant is that she purchased Policy No.0010837442 (Ann.C-1) from OPs and paid premium of Rs.25,000/- each for three regular years and in this way paid a total sum of Rs.75,000/-. 

8.           The contention of the complainant is that after completion of three policy years, when she made a request to the OPs for making payment against her policy, she was paid only a sum of Rs.58,916/- and a sum of Rs.16,084/- were forfeited without any details. 

9.           The ld.Counsel for the complaint has argued that the OPs have not refunded the full amount deposited by her i.e. Rs.75,000/- and instead forfeited Rs.16,134/- without any reasons.

10.         On the other hand, the contention of the OPs is that the policy taken by the complainant was a Unit Linked Policy and the investment risk was to be borne by the complainant/policyholder only.

11.          The ld.Counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has lodged no protest at the time of receiving the amount after surrender of the policy.  He also argued that the market value of the funds may increase or decrease depending upon the fund performance and no amount was ever guaranteed to the complainant.

12.          Annexure C-2 is Bajaj Allianz Unit Gain Policy Document, which has been placed on record by the complainant herself.  In this document at Page No.22 under Clause Surrender, it has been mentioned that “The Surrender Value of the policy will be equal to the bid value of the units calculated in the same manner as if the Units are to be cancelled.  The Policy shall thereafter terminate upon payment of the full surrender value by the company.  The policy will acquire a surrender value after payment of 3 full year’s premiums….”.

13.          As the complainant has surrendered the policy, after payment of 3 years premium, she was certainly entitled for the surrender value.  Therefore, the OPs have rightly made payment to the complainant as surrender value towards her policy. 

14.          On this document (Ann.C-2) at Page No.22 under Column of RISKS OF INVESTMENT IN THE UNITS OF THE FUNDS:, the following has been mentioned:-

“1)   Unit Linked Policy is only the name of the Policy and does not in any way indicate the quality of the policy, its future prospects or returns.

2)………..

3)    The Investments in the Units are subject to market and other risks and there can be no assurance that the objectivities of any of the funds will be achieved.

4)    The Units Value of the Units of each of the funds can go up or down depending on the factors and forces affecting the financial and debt markets from time to time and may also be affected by changes in the general level of interest rates.

5)    The past performance of other funds of the Company is not necessarily indicative of the future performance of any of these funds.

6)    The funds do not offer a guaranteed or assured return.

15.          Moreover, the surrender value paid by the OPs, was accepted and encashed by the complainant without raising any protest.

16.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the act & conduct of the OPs was righty & justified.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  This complaint as well as another connected Complaint Case bearing No.449 – Jagdish Singh Vs. The Branch Manager, Bajaj  Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., have no merits.  Therefore, both these complaint cases are hereby dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.