Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/227/2013

Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

Jagseer Singh Jassi, Adv.

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	227 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	22.05.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	10.04.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sarabjit Singh son of Sh.Karnail Singh, Village Nano Majra, #21, Tehsil & District Mohali, Punjab.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Bajaj Allianz through its Branch Manager, SCO No.215/217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Mandeep Kaur, Agent (Agent Code) 1000226278, Bajaj Alliance, SCO No.215/217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  None for the complainant

Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As none appeared on behalf of the complainant on the day of arguments i.e. 30.03.2015, we therefore, proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant.

 

2]       As per the case, the complainant, an agriculturist by profession had sold his property and got some money and comes under the faith of Opposite Party No.2 as well as brand name of Opposite Party No.1 and as such paid Rs.2.00 lacs as one time payment for the policy (Ann.C-1).  Opposite Party No.2 had told that it is only one time payment and the complainant would receive double of the deposited amount after three years.  However, when the complainant asked for the policy document, he was told to take another policy by making payment of Rs.1.00 lacs, which he had taken under pressure. 

         It is averred that the complainant never know to one identifier on the said policy, who signed it as “Dyal” which is not visible as to read.  It is also averred that there is no regular income of the complainant and he hold one time money due to his sale transaction.  It is further averred that Opposite Party NO.2 grab Rs.2.00 lacs of the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 as there is no policy in the name of the complainant for Rs.2.00 lacs and only one policy of Rs.1.00 lakh was in the name of complainant bearing NO.0056580860.  It is pleaded when the complainant visited the office of OPs for getting the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs deposited by the complainant in the name of Opposite Party No.1 as well as the policy money, he was threatened and told no amount is to be returned to him.  Then, a legal notice was sent, but no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed the reply and took objection that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is stated that the complainant being a prudent man, himself approached it and after fully understanding the investment risks of Unit Linked Insurance Plan, himself out of his free will proposed for the said policy (Capital Unit Gain) and opted to pay regular yearly premiums @Rs.1,00,000/- for premium paying term of 19 years carrying sum assured amount of Rs.9.50 lacs.  The complainant admittedly received the policy document containing terms & conditions of the contract.  It is denied that the complainant was ever assured that the policy is a single premium policy or a one-time premium policy.  It is also denied that any amount of Rs.2.00 lacs has been received from the complainant by the answering Opposite Party and therefore, the question of issuance of policy does not arise. The proposal for insurance was signed by the complainant in English language and he had signed in presence of the said witness.  It is pleaded that it is for the complainant to prove the name of the person who stood as his witness in the proposal for insurance submitted by him only.  It is also pleaded that the proposal No.0057397432, dated 11.7.2007 submitted by the daughter of the complainant was rejected due to non-compliance of mandatory requirements and the proposal deposit received under the policy amounting to Rs.2.00 lacs was refunded to the proposer Ms.Harmeet Kaur after deducting of medical charges of Rs.975/- and balance amount of Rs.1,99,025/- was paid to her vide Cheque No.15265, dated 22.1.2008. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up despite service, hence she was proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.2.2014.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record as well as written submissions of the complainant.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the ground that he had subscribed for a single term policy of the Opposite Parties on the promises their agent – Opposite Party No.2 of handsome returns. At the same time, another policy was also subscribed, which too was for a single premium of Rs.2.00 lacs, but the complainant claims to have only received one policy documents, issued in his name, whereas on enquiring repeatedly about the second policy for a premium amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, which was paid through a cheque bearing No.02281, dated 11.7.2007 and as per the Bank Statement of Account of the complainant (Ann.C-7), the said cheque of Rs.2.00 lacs was encashed by the Opposite Parties and the withdrawal of this amount is evident from an entry dated 14.7.2007 in the account statement. 

 

6]       The complainant has placed on record a copy of policy document bearing No.0056580860, dated 21.8.2007, whereas no other policy has been issued in his name for which he had already paid an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs.  Feeling aggrieved of the act of the Opposite Parties, he has preferred the present complaint against them seeking the quoted relief.

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.1, which has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply/version, has claimed that the policy in question, which the complainant claims to have not received at his end was actually proposed by his daughter Ms.Harmeet Kaur, who according to them was a major at the time of submitting the proposal form, but however, after going through the details of the proposal form, the same was rejected and after deducting an amount of Rs.975/- towards medical expenses, the balance amount of Rs.1,99,025/- was refunded vide Cheque No.15265, dated 21.1.2008.  The Opposite Party No.1 thus claimed that the complainant after having received this amount is estopped to file the instant complaint qua it and the present complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the outset. 

 

8]       Opposite Party No.1 has also claimed that the complainant himself having subscribed for the policy for an annual premium of Rs.1.00 lakh, failed to pay the subsequent premiums, which became due on 21.8.2008 and therefore, after a lapse of two years, even the policy issued in the name of the complainant was beyond the revival period, which expired on 20.8.2010. Therefore, the contract of policy with the complainant stood terminated and nothing was payable to him as per the terms & conditions of the policy.  In the context of this policy also, the present complaint is not maintainable, as after the expiry of the revival period, the complainant has seized to be a consumer qua Opposite Party No.1.  Therefore, citing no deficiency in service towards the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 has sought the dismissal of the present complaint on the aforementioned grounds.

 

9]       We have minutely perused the documents on record and are of the opinion that the present compliant, which involves the issue of two different policies, as per the disclosures of the Opposite Party No.1. The policy bearing NO.0056580860 issued in the name of the complainant though has certainly lapsed as on 20.8.2010 for non-payment of the annual premiums since 21.8.2008, but it is pertinent to mention here that the clause 9 of the Treatment of Discontinued Unit Linked Insurance Policies Regulation dated 1^st July, 2010 reproduced below:-

9.         Every insurer shall send a statement of account, on a half yearly basis, within fifteen days, in respect of every policy in force including discontinued policies where the proceeds are yet to be paid to the policyholder or her nominee as the case may be, his last known address, which shall contain the following details :-

(i) The total premium paid by the policyholder

(ii) Next due date of the premium

(iii) Pattern of the investment chosen

(iv) Pattern of investment

(v) Status of the policy

(vi) Total fund value

(vii) Total units

(viii) Detail of charges recovered.

 

Casts and obligation on Opposite Party No.1 that on 1^st July, 2010 when the said regulation had come into effect and no proceeds had been paid to the complainant, the aforementioned clause was squarely applicable and the failure on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in intimating the complainant about the status of the policy in question certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

 

10]      As with regard to the another policy, which the complainant was under impression that the same was also subscribed by him, but actually the proposal form was filled-up by Opposite Party No.2 in an unscrupulous manner in the name of Ms.Harmeet Kaur, daughter of the complainant.  The premium amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, so received by Opposite Party No.2, vide cheque No.0022811, dated 11.7.2007, was certainly deposited in the account of Opposite Party No.1 on 14.7.2007, but however as Opposite Party No.1 has claimed to have refunded this amount of Rs.2.00 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.975/- vide Cheque No.15265, dated 22.1.2008 after a gap of nearly 6 months, but the same has not been accounted for in the account of the complainant nor the Opposite Party No.1 has substantiated its pleading by placing on record any document either from the record of its office or from the Bank Statement of its Company from where the said amount of Rs.1,99,025/- is shown to have been withdrawn vide cheque No.15265, dated 22.1.2008 issued in the name of the daughter of the complainant.  Therefore, in the absence of any proof in the shape of a covering letter which was sent along with the cheque and also the conclusive proof of the dispatch of such communication and its receipt at the complainant’s end, the bald averments of reply/version of Opposite Party No.1 carry no force and the same are out rightly rejected in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from its side. 

 

11]      Though the Opposite Party No.1 has contested the maintainability of the present complaint against it for the reason that it had already refunded the premium amount of Rs.1,99,025/- and also the lapse of policy issued in the name of the complainant, but in view of the aforementioned discussions, the present complaint of the complainant is maintainable on both the scores. The Opposite Party No.1, who is still holding an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs of the complainant since 14.7.2007 and that too after having rejected the proposal form bearing No.0057397432 submitted in the name of Ms.Harmeet Kaur, daughter of the complainant, is liable to return the said amount along with reasonable interest, which the complainant have been losing since the date of debit of this amount from his account.  The complainant is certainly a harassed soul as he has not been able to recover his amount for the past nearly 8 years and for such an harassment, he deserves to be adequately compensated. 

 

12]      The Opposite Party No.2, who was an agent of Opposite Party No.1 at the point of time, when she was explaining the features of the policy and coaxing and cajoling the complainant into subscribing for the policy of Opposite Party No.1 has certainly acted against the rules and responsibilities as envisaged under the IRDA Guidelines mandatory for any insurance agent for the reason that Opposite Party No.2 failed to get a proper declaration on the policy document of the daughter of the complainant, as she had signed her signature in Punjabi vernacular on the proposal form and also that no genuine proof with regard to her payment capacities of an annual premium of Rs.2.00 lacs was demanded by her.  Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 also deserves to be adequately punished for having acted in an irresponsible manner.  

 

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 

[a] The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to comply with the provisions of Clause No.9 of the Treatment of Discontinued Unit Linked Insurance Policies Regulation dated 1^st July, 2010 in case of Policy bearing No.0056580860 issued in the name of the complainant;

[b] The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,99,025/- along with interest @9% per annum since the date of its receipt till it is paid to the complainant;

[c] The OPs No.1 & 2 are saddled with consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- each.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount payable to the complainant as per sub-para [a] from 1.7.2010 till it is paid; on the amount of Rs.1,99,025/- from the date of its receipt till it is paid as well as on the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

10.04.2015                                                Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                      

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.227 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of April, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member