BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 145/2011 Filed on 02/05/2011
Dated: 16..03..2017
Complainant:
Preman Ritchie, s/o R.S. Miranda, residing at Kavitha Thysseril, Kanjirampara Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Idicula Zachariah)
Opposite parties:
1. The Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, Maharashtra – 411 006.
2. The Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., IIIrd Floor, Kailaz Plaza, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
(Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. Dhanya. R)
This C.C having been heard on 30..01..2017, the Forum on 16..03..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is that he has taken policies from the opposite party. He paid the first year full premium amount of Rs. 25,000/- for each policy (policy No. 0046430503 and 0066445423) on 28/03/2007 and on 25/09/2007 and the company had issued receipts and policy certificates to the complainant. But due to financial difficulty he could not remit the subsequent premiums. On lapse of 3 years ie the lock I period, the complainant demanded the surrender value of the policy, but the opposite party reluctant to pay any amount. The complainant send legal notice on 09/09/2010 and reminder on 18/10/2010, but there was no reply from the opposite party. The complainant’s belief was that even in case of non-payment even after the first premium, the insured is entitled to get the surrender value on expiry of 3 years and the maximum surrender loss shall not exceed 30% of the paid up premium. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite party is liable to pay the amount towards the surrender value after deducting the surrender loss. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 35,000/- after deducting 30% surrenders loss. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 35,000/- towards surrender value of the policies along with Rs. 55,000/-, towards mental agony and hardship and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
2. The opposite parties received notice and entered appearance and filed their joint version.
The opposite parties admits that the complainant had availed policy bearing No. 0046430503 dated 28/03/2007 and 0066445423 dated 25/09/2007 from the opposite party. The complainant has filed beyond the limitation period of 2 years. The complainant alleges that the expiry of lock in period of policy No. 0046430503 & policy No. 0066445423 are 29/03/2010 and 26/09/2016, and the policy got lapsed on 29/4/2008 and 26/10/2008 respectively lapsed on 29/04/2008 and 26/10/2008 respectively. The complainant had paid only first year premium and failed to remit the premium for subsequent years. The complainant had availed the policy in the year 2007 and the premium term is for a period of 19 years. As per Sec 37 (f) of the policy it is clearly stated that about the surrender charge that “if at lest three full years regular premiums have not been paid, the surrender charge will be 100% of the value of the capital units”, Therefore this opposite party is not liable to pay the amount and this opposite party never made the complainant to believe that he is entitled to get surrender value after expiry of 3 years. It is submitted that as per the policy terms and conditions the mode and payment of premium was clearly stated in the policy. The complainant also had the option to go through the terms of the policy bond and if not acceptable was provided with the option of 15 days free lock period from the date of receipt of the policy as per the policy bond and in accordance to the provision of Sec 6(2) of the IRDA 2002 regulation, to approach the insurer for cancellation of the policy stating the reason. This was also not done by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. It is the complainant who had committed breach and as per the agreed terms and conditions of the policy of the policy holder fails to make payment at least 3 premiums then the surrender value would be 100% of the capital units. The opposite are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainant. The complaint is only to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and produced documents. The opposite parties also filed affidavit in lieu of chief and produced two documents.
Issues:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?
3. Issues (i) & (ii): The complainant has availed two policies from the opposite party on 28/03/2007 and 25/09/2007 for Rs. 25,000/- each and produced two receipts. The complainant failed to pay the subsequent premium due to financial crisis. On lapse of 3 years complainant demanded the surrender value of the policies, but opposite party was reluctant to pay any amount. So the complainant issued legal notice through lawyer and reminder. But there was no reply from the part of opposite party. The opposite party filed version stating that as per policy terms that if at least three full years regular premium have not been paid, the surrender charge will be 100% of the value of the capital unis. The complainant also had the option to go through the terms of the policy bond and could cancel the policy within the 15 days free lock period. Here the complainant approached this Forum which is within two years after the completion of 3 years. Hence complaint is not barred by limitation. Both the complainant and opposite party failed to appear before this Forum for examination and documents were also not marked. On going through the statement and evidence produced by both sides we are of view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant failed to make payment at least 3 premiums and therefore the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of March, 2017.
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
