West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/81/2013

Payal Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.81/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 26/02/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Bhattacharya. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. B. Das Advocate.                                   

          

    Payal Pal, D/o Sri Sankar Mohan Pal.(Advocate), at Rabindra Nager, P.O. Medinipur, P.S.       

    Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin. 721101. …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

    1)  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch. At Inda,     

          P.O.& P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

     2)  Head Office, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E.  PLAZA AIR PORT ROAD,  

          Herawada, Pune. 411006………..………Ops.

         

          The case of the complainant Payal Pal, in short, is that a sum of 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only by cheque dated 15/11/2007 was invested in Bajaj Allianz Centurty plus non-participating unit linked plan scheme under the influence of agent of the company convincing the complainant that she will get benefit of the policy after completion of five years by virtue of this one time payment of installment.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 6/12/12 she received a cheque dated 20/11/12 bearing an amount of 8,784/- (Eight thousand seven hundred eighty four) only with a notice of termination of the aforesaid policy on the ground of non-payment of regular premium.  Further a cheque of 8,782/-(Eight thousand seven hundred eighty four) only was issued by the Op as surrender value. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Op, the complainant issued an advocate notice on 28/1/13 whereby the complainant demanded the refund of  25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only plus bonus with interest.  But the Op refused to entertain the claim.  Hence the complainant has moved before us with the prayer for getting refund of 25,000-/ Twenty five thousand) only and award of 10,000/-(Ten thousand) only on account of deficiency of service against the Op.

                                                                                                                                Contd…………p/2

 

                                                                        - ( 2 ) -

                    Op contested the case by filing written objection that the complainant applied for insurance policy with necessary documents for an assured sum of 1,25,000-/ (One lakh twenty five thousand) only towards the policy term for ten years on annual premium of 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only with the date of commencement of the risk from 16/11/2007.  After payment of first premium dated 15/11/2007, the complainant did not make any further premium towards renewal of the said policy and as a result the policy was lapsed on receipt of 8,784/-(Eight thousand seven hundred eighty four) only on 20/11/12.  Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op and the case should be dismissed.

                   Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed in order to arrive at an effective decision in the matter.

                   Issues :                

     1)  Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action?

     2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

     3)   What other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos. 1 to 3:

                 All the issues are taken up together for discussion.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant was wrongly influenced and misguided by the agent of the Op Company to invest the sum of 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) only as a total premium convincing that she will get 1,25,000/- (One lakh twenty five thousand) only after ten years.  But the Op terminated the policy by payment of sum small amount without prior notice.  This is not lawful on the part of the Op-Company.  In order to support the case the complainant has submitted the investment policy certificate in Xerox copy and submitted that the aforesaid payment was only for total premium as single investment and no further payment was required to be paid in favour of the Op-Company.  But the Op before the completion of the total period of ten years, has terminated the policy by making a small amount i.e. 8,784/-(Eight thousand seven hundred  eighty four) only and 8,782/- (Eight thousand seven hundred eighty two) only at the middle of the total period of ten years.  Thus, the complainant has been deprived of his bona fide amount of sum assured 1,25,000/- (One lakh twenty five thousand) only.  So, the prayer of the complainant should be allowed.

                       Ld. Advocate for the Op Company has made his reply through his argument that there was no incident of misguiding the complainant for purchasing the said policy.  The policy for

Contd……….P/3

 

                                                                                                      - (  3 ) -

Investment of risk and is to be borne by the policy holder and in that subject the complainant furnished the proposal form upon being duly convinced with each and every aspect of the policy which is very much clear on the fact of the proposal form itself duly signed by the complainant apart from that, the complainant was given necessary opportunity for exercising her option for discontinuation of the policy if she so desires. In the investment risk policy there is prescribed schedule for the investment of different categories of benefits namely death benefit, maturity benefit, surrender value, rider benefits and loyalty benefits etc.  Even so the policy holder is given twenty five days from the date of receipt of the policy, there is scope for cancellation of the policy.  But here in this case, the complainant did not exercise such option.   So, there is no case of deficiency of service against the Op.

                   We have carefully scrutinized all documentary evidence admitted by the respective parties while considering the case and it appears that the complainant completely furnished the proposal form and signed the same which discloses that the complainant agreed for annual premium frequency against the sum assured of 1,25,000/- One lakh twenty five thousand) only One lakh twenty five thousand) only. It that be so, we are inclined to say that since the policy being a contract the parties an binding with the terms and conditions agreed for the purpose.

  Under the facts and circumstances, it is held and decided that the complainant has no cause of action to present the case before us for the relief claimed. Thus the issues are disposed of against the complainant. As a result, case should fail.

  Hence,

             It is ordered,

                                 that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                          Member                                  President

                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.