Orissa

Rayagada

CC/455/2015

Mrs Samista Jodia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

C.C. Case  No.455/ 2015

                                               

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                  Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B.                                Member

Mrs.Sarmistha Jhodia,Bagiri Jholla,Kucheipadar,Kashipur,Dist. Rayagada.

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Vrs.

1. General Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., GI Plaza, Airport Road,Yerwada,Pune,411006.
2. The Branch  Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.

                                                                …..…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Set Exparte

 

                                        JUDGMENT

The case of the complainant the OPs have approached the complainant  to have an insurance  on payment of  Rs.60,000/- and explained that she will get Rs.3,00,000/- after mataurity  and obtained LTI   on  the proposal forms and subsequently it is noticed that the complainant has to pay annual premium of  Rs.60,000/-vide policy No.26473183 and she has to pay Rs.6,00,000/-  whereas the maturity amount  is only Rs.3,00,000/- . Tahe Op 2 has not delivered the policy bond to the complainant. Now the Ops refused to pay the amount  deposited by the complainant. The Ops have committed fraud with the complainant  and they have not explained her about the  proposals and the complainant has no financial capacity to pay the premium and  they have given false information and hence it is an unfair trade practice to cause financial loss. Hence, prayed to  direct the Ops to return the deposited  amount of Rs.60,000/-  with compensation for mental agony with cost. Hence, this complaint.

The O.Ps  neither appeared nor filed written version and  sufficient time was given to the O.ps to file counter but it was not forth coming. Hence the O.ps were  set exparte in order to give relief to the consumer with the time frame of the act. Hence, in the absence of any pleadings by the O.ps the petition remain unchallenged.

It is the cardinal principle of insurance law that the insurer is in the position of a trustee as it is managing the common fund for and on behalf of the community of policy holders. It has to ensure that nobody is allowed to take undue advantage of the arrangement. That means the management of the insurance business requires care to prevent entry(into group) of people  whose risks are not of the same kind as well as paying claims on losses that are not accidental. The Management of life insurance companies are required to keep this aspect in mind and make all its decisions in  ways that benefit  the community. This applies also to its investments.  That is why successful insurance companies would not be found investing in speculative ventures. The life insurance policy is a contract, in terms of the Indian Contract Act.  A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do, or not do, so as to create a legally binding relationship. Here in this case the complainant was asked to pay one time premium of Rs.60,000/-  by the agent explaining the benefits contained therein and the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing and asked the proposer/complainant to sign on the dotted lines.  The declaration form filled in this case also written by the agent and obtained the signature thereon.  The agent’s responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/s 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agent has failed to discharge the duty as an agent and in order to get his income as commission has falsely represented the rural folks to divert their money. Hence the O.p has clearly violated the norms issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the O.P is liable to pay the amount paid as premium to the complainant.  The investment is made by the O.ps for the profit and not by the insurer.  Hence the advise given by the agent and  obtaining a form wherein the risk factor is transferred  in favour of the insurer’s is definitely coming under the purview of unfair trade practice.

When a rural folk invest the money with the assurance of the agent in the insurance and when she came to know that the above investment is not yielding any profit even after years and as such the above investment brought by the agent and accepted by the O.P is ;not with any intention to give any economic protection but with an intention to grab the money of the rural folks. Hence the plea of the O.ps can not be accepted.

In view of the discussion above, it is found to be  an unfair trade  practice made by the agent and O.Ps.  The O.Ps  have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural folk as seen from the counter and as such the complainant is entitled to get  refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant in the said scheme so as to enable them to invest the same with their choice.

We have gone through the complaint petition and documents available in the record. This forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus M/s Sukhadham India Pvt. Ltd.,2011(1) CPR 191 such as :- “ Insurance Company must settle claim without delay”. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.

Hence it is ordered.

                                                                            

                                           

 

                                         ORDER

                In the result the complaint petition is allowed on contest. We ordered  the O.ps to refund the deposited  amount of Rs.60,000/-  to the complainant and to pay interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till realization. We are further ordered to pay Rs.5,000/-for mental agony and harassment   and  cost of Rs.1,000/-  to the complainant

                The O.Ps are directed to make the aforesaid payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceeding U/s 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act.

        Pronounced in open forum today on this   12^th  of April,2017 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

                Member                                      President I/c