IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 211/07 DATED 30-11-2007<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.Vasantha Kumar,S/o K.V.Upadhyaya, R/at No.1319, Lalithadri Road, 5th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Mysore – 570 023. <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1 The Chairman,Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co., Ltd., G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune.<br /> 2 Nataraj Rao Palimar, Insurance Consultant Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kuvempunagar, Mysore. <br /> (By Sri.Ashwini Kumar Joshi., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 10.08.2007<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.09.2007<br /> Date of order : 30.11.2007<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 17 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties with his grievance that on 24.04.2006 he had given a DD for Rs.30,000/- to the Bajaj Life Insurance Company for investing that amount in Single Premium Unit Gain Policy, through the 2nd Opposite party. That on 21.05.2006, he received the policy dated 05.05.2006 which disclosed as Annual Premium and out of Rs.30,000/- paid Rs.10,000/- was taken as annual premium and Rs.20,000/- as top up premium. He on 21.05.2006 sent a registered letter to the Manager, Customer Care Desk of the 1st Opposite party to convert the policy into single premium policy. On 24.05.2006 also he sent a registered letter to the Grievances Redressal Officer of the 1st Opposite party. Again on 07.07.2006, he sent a registered letter to the Chairman of the 1st Opposite party for the same purpose, but the above letters are not replied. That on 12.07.2006, he sent a letter to their Bangalore Office, through the Manager of Syndicate Bank, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore to make the policy a single premium unit policy, but no reply was sent. On 30.03.2007, he addressed a letter to the 1st Opposite party to refund his money with 20% interest and therefore alleging deficiency in the service of the 1st Opposite party has prayed for directing the 1st Opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- paid by him with interest at 20% p.a. and compensation for mental agony and cost. <br /> 2. The 2nd Opposite party is set exparte, the 1st Opposite party through his counsel has filed version admitting receipt of DD for Rs.30,000/- from the Complainant has further contended that the Complainant is working as an Assistant Manager, well versed with the banking business while filling up the original proposal form he has shown as Rs.10,000/- as premium and Rs.20,000/- as top-up and after going through all the contents of the proposal filling it has signed the same and therefore the Complainant after understanding the proposal opted for annual premium unit gain and did not opt for single premium unit gain, therefore accordingly the policy was issued. This 1st Opposite party further denying receipt of letters referred to by the Complainant, further denying his liability has contended once the policy issued it cannot be changed, altered or modified under the Insurance Laws and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the Complaint allegations, the Complainant and the Manager of the 1st Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence. The Complainant has produced a Xerox copy of the proposal form and copies of certain correspondences he had made with the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party has produced the original proposal form and check list in connection with issue of the policy. Heard the Complainant who is in person, counsel for the 1st Opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he had applied for issue of a single premium unit gain policy to the 1st Opposite party, whereas the 1st Opposite party instead of issuing single premium unit gain policy has issued annual premium unit gain policy and thereby caused deficiency in its service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- As there is no dispute between the parties regarding the Complainant giving a DD for Rs.30,000/- to the 1st Opposite party on 24.04.2006 for issue of a insurance policy and there being only a dispute between the parties with regard to the type of policy applied for and issued, we shall confine to that fact and refer to the proposal form given by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite party and the policy issued by the 1st Opposite party. <br /> 7. The Complainant by producing a Xerox copy of the proposal form before us submitted that he after delivering a DD for Rs.30,000/- as a single premium amount filled up a form for issue of a single premium policy, but the 1st Opposite party has issued annual premium unit gain policy and therefore stated that the 1st Opposite party has committed gross deficiency in its service. Whereas, the counsel for the 1st Opposite party producing the original proposal form submitted by the Complainant invited our attention to the contents of this proposal form. On seeing this proposal form admittedly filled up, singed and submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant has shown the policy as “unit gain”. Further, he has also filled up at the premium column as Rs.10,000/- and top-up amount is shown as Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant has not filled up the proposal form intending to opt for single premium unit gain policy. The counsel for the Opposite party argued if the Complainant had intended to take a single premium unit gain policy he should have mentioned at the column product name as single premium unit gain policy, but stated that the Complainant has not written so, but only stated as unit gain. That according to the counsel for the Opposite party it implies as if it is an annual policy and further referred to the splitting of the amount by the Complainant in the proposal form wherein the Complainant has shown Rs.10,000/- as premium and remaining Rs.20,000/- as top up. The meaning of the word top-up as explained by the counsel for the 1st Opposite party is that amount of Rs.20,000/- is two premiums payable for the following 2 years towards paid in advance. The Complainant has not denied the contention of the proposal form and did not dispute the contention of the Opposite party. Therefore, when the Complainant himself has filled up by showing Rs.20,000/- as top-up and which means the advance payment of two installments for the next coming 2 years he cannot be heard to say that he had opted for single premium unit gain policy. If he had really intended to take a single premium unit gain policy he could have clearly written the same at the appropriate column and shown the payment of Rs.30,000/- towards single premium policy instead of splitting that amount and showing Rs.20,000/- as top-up. This splitting up of Rs.20,000/- and showing that amount as top-up itself is indicative of the fact that he had opted for annual premium policy if not he would not have shown that Rs.20,000/- as top up. Therefore, the 1st Opposite party basing on this information and intention of the Complainant exhibited in this proposal form has issued the annual premium unit gain policy. No doubt, the Complainant on receipt of the policy on 21.05.2006 on that day itself addressed a letter to the customer care cell of 1st Opposite party informing that he had opted for single premium policy and therefore requesting the 1st Opposite party to change the annual premium policy to single premium policy and another letter on the same day to the grievances redressal cell of the 1st Opposite party and he has also produced a copy of the letter dated 07.07.2006 addressed to the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party has denied the receipt of these letters, but the Complainant has not proved to the satisfaction of this Forum about the receipt of these letters by the 1st Opposite party. But to the notice that the Complainant issued the 1st Opposite party he has sent reply to the Complainant as per the copy of the letter produced which do not bear the date in which the 1st Opposite party has informed the Complainant that they on checking the concerned docket they did not see any mention of the Complainant requesting for issue of a single premium plan and therefore they had issued annual premium policy. The 1st Opposite party in their version and also in their affidavit evidence have stated that once the policy issued it cannot be changed, altered or modified under the insurance laws. Even during the course of arguments through the counsel for the 1st Opposite party, we secured an officer of the 1st Opposite party to examine the possibility of changing the policy from annual premium policy to single premium policy, for which the officer replied that such a changing over cannot be done once the policy is issued. The Complainant as against this did not point to us any other lapses or deficiency in the service of the 1st Opposite party. As such, we find no merits in the Complaint and we answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th November 2007)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />