BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.76/2022

DATED ON THIS THE 6^th September 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Sri Uttamchand Bhatewara, resident of Mysuru has filed this complaint against the opposite party – The Branch Manager, M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mysuru, praying to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the value of the policy and accrued benefits and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards notice charges and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation.     
2.       The brief facts are that:-

The wife of the complainant Smt.Leelakumari Bhatewara had taken a policy bearing No.0014143645 from OP commenced on 22.12.2005 and the premium payable was Rs.25,000/- per annum.Accordingly, the complainant has remitted the premium, in all Rs.1,50,000/- for the year 2005, 2006 and 2007.The assured amount was Rs.2,50,000/- and the policy to matured on 22.12.2029 for a period of 14 years.In the event of death of insured, the entire amount of policy of Rs.2,50,000/- will be paid.The wife of the complainant was remitting the premium regularly and she died on 14.09.2021 and consequent to her death, the complainant submitted necessary claim papers on 09.11.2021.The complainant was the nominee to the said policy.But, to utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite party gave a letter dated 18.11.2021 stating that the net amount payable under the policy is Rs.44,229/- (death benefit is higher of SA or FV (or) SA + fund value (or) only SA (or) GDB as mentioned in the policy document are untenable in law and only invented for the purpose of making wrongful gain for the OP.It is further contended that the officer of the OP. On 25.09.2020 the officer of the OP misleaded the complainant and got withdrawn a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the account extract on 20.09.2020 and likewise Bajaj Allianz Equity Midcap Plus Fund SFIN Code ULIF00723/07/04EQPLUSFUND116 a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the said fund were made use by the officer of OP for the issue of policy bearing No.0416310572 in view of proposal dated 14.09.2020, as such question that the complainant had not kept minimum balance as stated in the letter of OP dated 18.11.2021 are untenable.Further it is stated in the letter dated 18.11.2021 that the death benefit higher are not tenable.The OP would have intimated the complainant well in advance when the SA or FV were lesser and called upon the complainant to regularize the account to keep the account in accordance with the terms of the policy. It is further averred that the complainant has not received entire policy documents except cover note.The OP only to defraud the complainant not paid the policy amount and thereby repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to OP.  In spite of service of notice, OP does not turned up.  Hence, it was placed exparte.         
4.        The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.      
5.       Heard the arguments of complainant’s counsel. 
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- In the negative

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- It is the contention of the complainant that his wife by name Smt.Leelakumari Bhatewara had taken policy bearing No.0014143645 from Op commencing from 22.12.2005 and remitted premium in all Rs.1,50,000/- for the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/- and the policy to matured on 22.12.2029.  In the event of death of policy holder, the company shall liable to pay a sum assured amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with accrued benefits thereon and it is further contention of the complainant that his wife died on 14.09.2021 as such he made claim form with the OP for payment of sum assured with accrued benefits thereon.  But, the OP had issued letter dated 18.11.2021 stating that the net amount payable under the policy is Rs.44,229/- and the officer of the OP mis-leaded the complainant to withdraw the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was made use by the officer of the OP for issue of policy bearing No.0416310572 in view of proposal dated 14.09.2020 and further it is the case of the complainant that the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
9. Though the complainant has relied upon the policy bearing No.0014143645 said to have been taken by the wife of complainant Smt.Leelakumari Bhatewara during her life time.  But, the complainant has not at all produced the said policy except producing Ex.P.1 claim payment under policy bearing No.0014143645 the life of late Smt.Leelakumari Bhatewara amounting to Rs.44,229/-.  In the absence of production of original policy bearing No.0014143645 this Commission could not able to come to the conclusion about the terms of the said policy and how the OP had come to the conclusion and paid a sum of Rs.44,229/- under the said policy.  The averments made by the complainant that the policy bearing No.0014143645 was to matured on 22.12.2019 and he had paid premium of Rs.1,50,000/- for the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the maturity amount was Rs.2,50,000/-.  But, in the absence of production of policy bearing No.0014143645 the contention of the complainant that the sum assured of the said policy was Rs.2,50,000/- and in case of death of policy holder, the OP shall pay the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- with accrued benefits thereon, it cannot be believed and accepted since the said policy has not been produced by the complainant for perusal of this Commission.  Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the complainant that the sum assured of the said policy was Rs.2,50,000/- is remained as mere contention without any proof.  Ex.P.2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to OP calling upon the OP to pay a sum assured.  Ex.P.3 is the letter written by the complainant to OP.  Except the production of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, the complainant has not at all produced any other material documents such as the original policy issued by the OP bearing No.0014143645. Under such circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the terms and conditions of policy bearing No.0014143645 issued by OP which had been taken by wife of the complainant Smt.Leelakumari Bhatewara.  On the material placed on record i.e. Ex.P.1 it can be believed that the OP had settled the claim under the policy bearing No.0014143645 to the complainant.  Under such circumstances, the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP holds no water.  Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
10.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 6^th September, 2022)