This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of    Sri Gogula Brahmaiah. Advocate for Complainant and of Sri S. Venkateswar Rao Gupta, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, this Forum passed the following order;

ORDER

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

            This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had taken Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus vide policy No.0073318500 on 02-11-2007 by paying single premium of Rs.2,00,000/- on 29-10-2007 by way of cheque bearing No.670707 of I.O.B., Khammam, from the opposite party.  The maturity of the policy date is 02-11-2012.  The complainant submitted that at the time of taking policy the opposite party assured to the complainant that after five years, the complainant will get Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. more than insured amount.  The complainant further submitted that after maturity of the policy, he has approached the opposite party on 03-11-2012 for getting the policy amount along with benefits, but the opposite party replied that the complainant is entitled to get a maturity value, opposite party has paid 1/3^rd of the policy amount i.e. Rs.70,000/- only and retained Rs.1,47,000/-.  The complainant also submitted that on 26-11-2012 he has received a letter along with proposal from the opposite party dated 22-11-2012, in which it is mentioned that 15/30 days time was given to the complainant stating that whether the complainant is willing to continue the policy under pension guarantee 5G or not, he has to inform to the opposite party and it is called as Free Look Policy No.286038251-C.  The complainant further submitted that after receiving the letter from the opposite party on 08-12-2012, he has sent a letter to the opposite party for cancellation of the proposal made by the opposite party and requested for return of balance amount, the opposite party endorsed on the said application that the policy was registered as Q.No.33726833 on 10-12-2012 and the request of the complainant cannot be considered.  The complainant also submitted that the non-payment of the 2/3^rd of the policy amount i.e. Rs.1,47,000/- along with benefits to the complainant by the opposite party comes under definition of deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and violation of terms of policy.  The complainant approached the opposite party number of times for getting the amount as the opposite parties failed to pay the amount, as such the complainant approached the Forum.

2.         On behalf of the complainant, the following documents filed and marked as Exs..A1 to A4.

Ex.A.1-  Photocopy of receipt dt.29-10-2007, showing payment of Rs.2,00,000/- through Chq.No.630707, dt.29-10-2007 of I.O.B., Khammam.

Ex.A.2-  Photocopy of Letter dt.08-11-2007 for Policy No.0073318500 along with First Premium Receipt, Policy Schedule along with Policy Document.

Ex.A.3- Photocopy of Bajaj Allianz Pension Guarantee Singe Premium Policy   No.0286038251.

Ex.A.4 - Photocopy of representation letter dt.08-12-2012 made by the complainant to the opposite party for cancellation policy and endorsement of the opposite party.

3.         On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel but failed to file counter. 

4.         On behalf of the opposite parties no documents were filed.

5.         Complainant filed written arguments and also filed photo copy of order in C.C.No.56/2012 of District Consumer Forum, Cuttack.

6.         Upon perusing the material available on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,  

1. Whether the complainant entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1: 

            In this case, the complainant had taken Bajaj Allianz New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus SP (M), from the opposite party.  According to the complainant, after maturity of the policy, o 03-11-2012, the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the policy amount along with benefits under the policy.  According to the complainant, the opposite party has paid 1/3^rd of the policy amount i.e. Rs.70,000/- only and retained 1,47,000/-.  According to the complainant on 26-11-2012, he received copy of proposal form from the opposite party, in which it is mentioned that 15/30days time was given to the complainant stating that whether the complainant is willing to complete the policy under pension guarantee 5G or not?  It is called as Free Look policy.  According to the complainant, after receiving the letter from the opposite party, he has sent a letter to the opposite party for cancellation of the proposal and requested for the return of the balance amount, but the opposite party has endorsed on the said application that the policy was registered as Q.No.33726833 on 10-11-2012 and stated that the request of the complainant cannot be considered.  As the opposite parties failed to refund the amount, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

            From the documents and material available on record, from the policy conditions, we observed that as per policy document under Clause 3 of Sub clause (b) of the policy, in sub clause b (1) on the survival of the life assured to the date of vesting,

1. On the vesting Date, the whole of the Fund Value may be used to purchase an immediate annuity for the Life assured from the company at the immediate annuity rates of the company prevailing at that time or from any other insurer in the open market as chosen by the Life Assured.  Or
2.  The Life Assured may receive in lump sum up to a maximum of 1/3^rd of the Fund Value as on the Vesting Date.  The balance amount will be used to purchase an immediate annuity for the Life Assured from the Company at the immediate annuity rates of the company prevailing at that time or from any other insurer in the open market as chosen by the Life Assured.  The policyholder has to exercise this option at least 6 months before the Vesting Date.

Referring to these provisions to the policy, the word “may” has been used which is to be interrupted that the option is left to the policyholder, whether he would reinvest the whole of the fund value or receive 1/3^rd of such value and reinvest the balance 2/3^rd in purchasing the annuity. 

            From the record, we also observed that, the complainant paid premium under the policy and waited till the maturity and the policy got matured on 02-11-2012.  We carefully examine the terms and conditions in sub clause (b) of clause 3 of the policy and we are of the opinion that reinvestment of the fund value after maturity is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the policy holder and withholding of the matured value by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  And also we observed that as per the copy of proposal dated 22-11-2012, in which it is mentioned that 15 or 30 days time was given to the complainant stating that whether the complainant is willing to continue for the above?  On 08-12-2012, the complainant has sent a letter to the opposite party for cancellation and requested to refund the balance amount.  From the above it is clear that the complainant is left with an option to reinvest the fund value or to receive the whole matured value.  And it is not mandatory on the part of the policy holder to reinvest the money on maturity.  As per Ex.A4, the complainant submitted application to the opposite party for payment of the policy amount by cancelling the policy and requested to return his money.  In our opinion, nonpayment of the balance amount and reinvest the amount into other policy is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

7.                     In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,47,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourty Seven Thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30-01-2013, till the date of actual payment to the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). 

                  Dictated to the Steno, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 09^th day of October, 2013.  

      FAC PRESIDENT                  MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for complainant:

None

Witnesses examined for opposite parties:

None

Exhibits marked for complainant:

Ex.A.1-  Photocopy of receipt dt.29-10-2007, showing payment of Rs.2,00,000/- through Chq.No.630707, dt.29-10-2007 of I.O.B., Khammam.

Ex.A.2-  Photocopy of Letter dt.08-11-2007 for Policy No.0073318500 along with First Premium Receipt, Policy Schedule along with Policy Document.

Ex.A.3- Photocopy of Bajaj Allianz Pension Guarantee Singe Premium Policy   No.0286038251.

Ex.A.4 - Photocopy of representation letter dt.08-12-2012 made by the complainant to the opposite party for cancellation policy and endorsement of the opposite party.

Exhibits marked for opposite party:- Nil. 

            FAC PRESIDENT                     MEMBER

      DISTRICT CONSUMER  FORUM, KHAMMAM