(Passed on 30.03.2016)
Per Smt Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member
1. Being aggrieved by the order dtd.12.03.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur dismissing the consumer complaint bearing No.157/2009, the original complainant Shri Ramvilas Vishwakarma has preferred this appeal.
(Appellant Ramvilas Vishwakarma to be referred as complainant and the respondent Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company through its Manager to be referred as O.P. for the sake of convenience.)
2. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his complaint are as under:-
Complainant Shri Ramvilas Vishwakarma had purchased three insurance policies from the O.P. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. The details of which being as under :-
Policy No. Premium Paid Receipt No. Date
i. 312361 3,00,000/- 8094734 30.12.2008
ii. __ 4,00,000/- (Premim paid in 5 instalments)
1,00,000/- 001200685 28.10.2005
1,00,000/- 0040419508 23.08.2006
1,00,000/- 0142417960 10.04.2008
75,000/- 0080400208 27.06.2007
25,000/- 0020401133 27.06.2007
________
Total 4,00,000/-
iii. 010763180 1,62,500/- (premium paid in 13 instalments
of Rs.12,500/- each)
12,500/- 1466974 31.08.2005
12,500/- 2140053 29.11.2005
12,500/- 3087300 03.03.2006
12,500/- 35990400 02.06.2006
12,500/- 3965504 06.09.2006
12,500/- 3966864 16.12.2006
12,500/- 5614442 10.03.2007
12,500/- 6670190 05.07.2007
12,500/- 6671493 08.09.2007
12,500/- 8475545 10.12.2007
12,500/- 2569018 03.03.2008
12,500/- 2571323 03.06.2008
3. It is the contention of the complainant that he was never supplied the copy of the insurance policy. The complainant, therefore, demanded refund of the amount paid towards premium by issuing a legal notice to the O.P. on 10.02.2009. The O.P. failed to take any cognizance of the aforesaid notice. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint seeking refund of total amount of Rs.8,62,500/- with interest towards amount of premiums paid in the aforesaid three policies with interest.
4. The O.P. resisted the complaint by filing the written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The O.P. specifically submitted that the complainant had purchased four insurance policies from the O.P. The details of which being as under:-
- Unit Link Policy No.10763180 dtd.31.08.2005, total amount of premium paid as Rs.1,50,000/- from the period from 31.08.2005 to 03.06.2009. The amount of premium received is invested in Share Market and the returns are assessed as per the market value of unit. The complainant after due assessment was paid Rs.89,957/-. The O.P. had refunded the actual surrender value of the policy as demanded by the complainant.
- The second policy purchased by the complainant was bearing No.12006085 which commenced from 17.10.2005 to 10.04.2008. The complainant paid total amount of premium of Rs.3.00 Lacs. The yearly premium of Rs.1.00 Lac was to be paid in the aforesaid policy. The complainant had demanded refund of Rs.2.00 Lacs on 22.12.2008. The complainant was paid Rs.2.00 Lacs by cheque on 26.12.2008 as demanded by the complainant by letter dtd.24.12.2008. It is the contention of the O.P. that as per the market value of the units the account of the complainant has been debited.
- The third policy purchased by the complainant was bearing No. 25456162 and the complainant paid premium of Rs.1.00 Lac on 23.09.2006 i.e. the date of commencement of the policy. The said policy was also a Unit Link Policy. The complainant has never sought for surrender of the policy. However, the O.P. have given the statement of account about the policy as demanded by the complainant.
- The fourth policy bearing No.117046885 was purchased by the complainant and the risk commenced from 07.01.2009. The period of the said policy was for 10 years. The yearly premium of Rs.3.00 Lacs was to be paid in that policy and the said policy had insurance coverage of Rs.15.00 Lacs in the event of death of the insured. 90% of the premium was to be invested in equity market. The complainant demanded cancellation of the aforesaid policy on 19.01.2009. The O.P. refunded amount of Rs.2,88,027/- being the market value of the unit as on 21.01.2009.
5. The O.P. denied to have rendered any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint as the complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands and suppressed aforesaid material information about the amount received from the O.P. towards insurance policies of the complainant.
6. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents filed on record dismissed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that the complainant has failed to mention the details of policy and the complaint filed is of ambiguous nature. The complainant has not made out the case that the amount refunded by the O.P. is less or he has not calculated it properly. The Forum has further held that as submitted by the O.P. the policies are Unit Linked Policies and it involves calculations varying daily upon the market rates of the units. Such dispute cannot be decided in summary proceedings as it involves detail evidence to be adduced in respect of the settlement of accounts. Holding accordingly, the Forum dismissed the complaint as already mentioned.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the original complainant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Forum failed to consider that the O.P. had rendered deficiency in service by transferring the “Life Insurance Policies” in to “Equity Link Policy” without his consent.
8. We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the copy of the complaint, written version, documents filed on the record and written notes of arguments filed by both parties.
9. The appellant for the first time at appellate stage, has alleged deficiency in service rendered by the O.P. on account of transferring the “Life Insurance Policies” in to “Equity Link Policy” without his consent. The complainant in his complaint has prayed only refund of the amount of premium paid in those policies. The complainant has also not mentioned the terms & conditions of the insurance policies purchased by him. Nor has he denied or disputed the submissions of the O.P. by filing rejoinder.
10. The O.P. on the other hand in support of specific submissions has filed documents to support the refund of amount made to the complainant as per statement of accounts. Therefore, we hold that O.P. has not rendered deficient service to the complainant.
11. We find no glaring infirmity or illegality in the finding of the Forum as the complaint is of ambiguous nature and complainant suppressed material facts and it deserves to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to cost in this appeal.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost
