Karnataka

Bellary

CC-25/2014

M.YALLAPPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI M.BHEEMAPPA

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	03-02-2014
ORDER ON:	05-03-2015

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

C.C.No.25 of 2014    

 

 

  Present :  

 

  (1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

                                          B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

                                                                                            (in-charge)

   

  (2) Smt Mary Havila,

                                          B.A.                       ……        Member

 

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF MARCH 2015.     

 

COMPLAINANT   By-Shri M Bheemappa,            Advocate, Bellary.           //VS//	M Yallappa, S/o Hanumanthappa, Age: 62 years, R/o 5th cross, Plot No.7, Ward No.1, Renukanagar, Talur road, Bellary-583 103.
RESPONDENTS            By-Shri A Mohammed Ghouse,          Advocate, Bellary,	The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch at Near City Hospital, Dam road, Hospet, Bellary district-583 201.

         

     

// O R D E R //

 

Per Smt Mary Havila.

 

       The complainant filed the complaint against the respondent U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

             2.  The complaint in brief is that the complainant obtained a   life insurance policy from the respondent’s insurance company on           22-12-2009 by paying Rs.5,000/- towards half yearly premium and the commencement date of the policy was 22-12-2009 and the maturity date is 22-12-2019. The complainant has paid five premiums amount towards the said policy totally Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, due to unavoidable circumstances the complainant being unable to continue the policy asked for refund of the premium amount paid, with the respondents.  As per the policy terms and conditions and IRDA rules, after paying the premiums for 3 years, the policy holder is entitled for refund of the premium amount already paid. However, the respondent’s insurance company refused to pay the same.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondents calling upon them to refund the amount paid as premium for the policy obtained by him.  In spite of service of the said notice, the respondents have not complied with the demand made in the notice. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents’ insurance company.  Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed fo

               3.    The respondent filed the written version stating that save those averments of the complaint which are specifically admitted or traversed, rest are deemed to have been denied.  All the allegations made in the complaint are false and are not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is misconceived, misconstrued and contrary to the contract between the parties.  The complaint is barred by limitation. The policy availed by the complainant is a unit linked policy, risk of investments in the market under the policy has to be borne by the policy holder.  The premium amount is the consideration for taking risk of life of insured and the premiums so paid takes risk for the period for which the premium has been paid. Hence, the complainant’s prayer for refund of entire premium amount along with other prayer is unsustainable in law.  Since the premium is appropriated for the period of risk no right or equity arises in favour of the insured/complainant for seeking refund of premium amount.   If the complainant is not willing to continue the policy he can surrender the policy and the company shall pay the surrender value as envisaged in the policy terms and conditions.  The averments made in para-1 to 8 of the complaint are denied as false.  Nowhere in the policy terms and conditions it is agreed that the complainant is entitled for refund of entire premium amount paid by him if the complainant is unable to continue the policy.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled to surrender the policy if the policy is in force only and if he has paid all 3 years premium amount in full and the respondents shall pay the surrender value. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as he has willfully and intentionally suppressed the material facts to make wrongful gain. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for.  Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

          4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 06 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The respondent as his evidence, filed one affidavit, which is marked as Rw.1 and got marked 04 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. Interrogatories are filed by the respondent and answers are given by the complainant

       5.  Heard arguments on both sides.   

     6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1.	Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondent towards him, as alleged in the complaint?
2.	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

7.   The findings on the above points are as under.  

 

Point No.1:	In the negative.
Point No.2:	In the negative.
Point No.3:	As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1: -   

 

                 8.  The respondent has not denied that the complainant’s case that he obtained a life insurance policy from their company  which was to commence from 22-12-2009 and to mature on                 22-12-2019 and he had paid five half yearly premiums amounting to Rs.25,000/- and thereafter due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not continue the policy. 

                  9.  It is the case of the complainant that after payment of 3 years premiums as he could not continue the policy he asked the respondents to refund the premium amounts paid by him and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, after payment of 3 years premiums the insured is entitled to get refund of the same and the respondent failed to refund it.   

                   10.   However, it is the contention of the respondent that the policy availed by the complainant is a unit linked policy, risk of investments in the market under the policy has to be borne by the policy holder and the premium amount being the consideration received for taking risk of life of the insured for the period for which the premium has been paid, the complainant’s prayer for refund of entire premium amount is unsustainable in law and if the complainant is not willing to continue the policy, he can surrender the policy and the company shall pay the surrender value after deduction of surrender charges as well as withdrawal penalty charges and nowhere in the terms and conditions it is agreed that the complainant is entitled for refund of the entire premium amount paid by him if he is unable to continue the policy.     

                11.   The complainant himself stated that he had paid five half yearly premiums totally Rs.25,000/-.  That means he has not paid the premium for first three policy years.  However, on perusal of Ex.P.6 which is payment reference dated:24-06-2014 issued by the respondent’s insurance company to the complainant, it is found that the respondent had intimated the complainant about the termination of the policy obtained by him due to non-payment of premium for first three policy years.   It is also found in Ex.P.6 that in view of the said action of termination of the policy of the complainant, the surrender value as per the terms of the policy is being paid to the complainant vide cheque No.918635 dated:                  24-06-2014 for Rs.12,158/-. Ex.P.6 is also not disputed by the complainant.  Therefore, deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the respondent’s insurance company.  Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.   

Point No.2:-

 12.  As it is found that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondent’s insurance company, he is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.   Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.    

Point No.3: -

 13. In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following; 

 

//ORDER//

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. 

No order as to costs. 

Inform the parties accordingly.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court  this 05TH day of March 2015)

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT.
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER

 

 

 

 

trk