BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1]  Poonam Bishnoi w/o Sh.Saurabh Bishnoi,

2]  Saurabh Bishnoi son of late Sh.Surinder Bishnoi,

Both residents of H.No.751-B, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainants

                 V E R S U S

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.45, Pocket-1, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Ms.Poonam Bishnoi, Complainant NO.1 in person and authorized agent of Complainant NO.2.

           Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for OP

[PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         The complainants purchased two insurance policies from OP Company bearing NO.0109463523 & 0162874290 by paying premium of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/- respectively as single/one time premium. But later on, the OP Company asked the complainants to pay regular premium against said policies. It is averred that the amount of the complainant has not been invested in a proper manner and the policy issued is not in accordance with the terms & conditions as detailed by the representative of OP. Hence, the complainants made a request to the OP seeking to refund the entire amount, whereupon it sent a cheque of Rs.13,283/-, dated 9.11.2011 against an invested of  Rs.75,000/-.  Hence, this compliant alleging the said act of OP as gross deficiency in service & unfair trade practice.

2]       THE OP filed reply stating therein that the complainants were issued “New Unit Gain” plan for a sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs & Rs.2.50 lacs, respectively, for a term of 20 years and the premium was to be paid yearly.  It is also stated that the policies in question were issued to complainants, as proposed by them, vide their proposal forms Ann.R-1 & R-2 respectively.  It is submitted that as complainant No.1 never made any efforts to get her policy revived during the revival period of 2 years, hence her contract of policy stands terminated and the payment of Rs.13,283/- was made to her. Similarly, complainant No.2 also failed to revive his policy within the revival period, so his contract of policy was also terminated and nothing was found payable to him.  It is asserted that if the complainants were not satisfied with the terms & conditions of the policies, for any reason as alleged, they could have availed free look period option for cancellation of the policies, but did not do so.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying the averments made in the complaint, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard complainant no.1 in person and authorized agent of complainant No.2 & ld.Counsel for OP and have also perused the record.

5]       Admittedly, the complainants purchased two Unit Gain insurance policies from OP Insurance Company bearing NO.0109463523 & 0162874290 by paying premium of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/- respectively. 

6].      The contention of the complainants is that the said policy purchased by them was Single Premium Policy, but the OPs still asked them to pay regular premium against said policies.  When they sought refund of premium amount, they paid much less amount then their investment of Rs.75,000/-.

7]       Annexure R-1 & R-2 are the copies of proposal forms, duly signed by the complainants.  In both these proposal form, on the top, it has been specified “Unit Linked- ‘IN THIS POLICY, THE INVESTMENT RISK IN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IS BORNE BY THE POLICYHOLDER”. The frequency of premium, as mentioned in the proposal form at Sr.No.5, is Annual. Once the complainants are signatory to the said proposal forms and have also received the insurance policies & other documents, they cannot, at this later stage, wriggle out from those terms & conditions, which they had already accepted.

8]       In the Policy Document (Ann.R-3), there is Option of Free Look Period at Sr.No.15, which shows that the complainants, if dissatisfied with it for any reason, could return the policy document to the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Since, the complainants themselves failed to return the policy document within the above said free look period, therefore, now they cannot allege anything contrary.

9]       As the policies in question were in lapsed position due to non-payment of regular premium, the OPs were well within their right to cancel it and send the balance amount, if any, in accordance to the terms & conditions of the policy document (Ann.R-3).

10]      We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil P. Tadkalkar, 1(1996) CPJ 159 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“Moreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia paid by him during the period of the policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk.  If during this period the Complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the policies even though only some fraction of the premia would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the policies the Complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two policies.  It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the policies.”

11]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.