BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                    Dated this the 30^th of April 2011

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.259/2010

(Admitted on 01.10.2010)

Mr.Shridhar Shet,

So. Manjunath Shet,

Aged about 56 years,

RA. Door No.5 6 588 2,

Sri.Laxmi Nivas,

Bhagavathi Nagar, 2^nd Cross,

Mangalore  3.                                    …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.M.Rajesh Kudva).

          VERSUS

1. The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

1^st Floor, Thumbay Arcade,

Falnir Junction,

Mangalore 575 001.

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri.K.S.Udaya Narayana).

2. The Manager,

A.R. Insurance Broker Ltd.,

Anand Rathi, Seagull House,

2^nd Floor, Shivaji Colony,

Andheri Kurla Road,

Chakala, Andheri East,

Mumbai – 400 099.           ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri.M.Vinayak Prabhu).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he had obtained a policy bearing No.0020158618 from the Opposite Party No.1 on 4.4.2006 by paying yearly premium of Rs.30,000/- under Unit Link Endowment Plan.  The sum assured under the said plan is Rs.1,50,000/- and the Complainant was assured to withdraw the amount after 3 years successive payment commencing from 4.4.2006. 

It is stated that, after lapse of 3 years in the year 2009, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the amount but the same is not paid.  It is further stated that, the last payment made by the Complainant was not entered in the records of the Opposite Parties inpsite of the receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.2 which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed separate version.

Opposite Party No.1 admitted the policy and stated that, the policy was effective from time to time subject to paying the yearly premium and the said policy had the lock in period of 3 years from its inception. It is stated that, the policy under reference lapsed from 14.5.2008 and hence the Complainant is not entitled for any coverage nor refund of the amount.  It is further stated that, in case of payment of premium to the 2^nd Opposite Party, the same has to be recovered from the 2^nd Opposite Party and not from the 1^st Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          The 2^nd Opposite Party stated that, this Opposite Party is only a collection agent of the 1^st Opposite Party, there is no contract between this Opposite Party and the Complainant and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.Shridhar Shet (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.   Ex C1 to C9 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail.  One Sri.Anish M.G (RW1), Assistant Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.1 and one Sri.Maya Prasad (RW1), Associate Vice President of the 2^nd Opposite Party filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them.  The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties filed notes of arguments.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

The facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant is holding Life Insurance Policy issued by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited i.e., Opposite Party No.1 under the policy No.0020158618 commenced on 13.04.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.  The yearly premium agreed between the parties is of Rs.30,000/- and due date of premium is 13^th April of every year.  The policy obtained by the Complainant is a Unit Linked Policy.  It is also admitted that, the Complainant paid the premium of Rs.30,000/- initially to become a policy holder and the same has been accepted by the Opposite Party No.1 and issued a Life Insurance Policy as per Ex C3.

Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, according to the Complainant, he had paid premium of Rs.30,000/- for 3 years successively commencing from 04.04.2006.  It is stated that, after the lapse of three years i.e., in the year 2009, the Complainant has got right to withdraw the amount under the above policy.  According to the Complainant, he had remitted Rs.30,000/- every year and produced original receipt in support of the same and stated that after completion of three years, the Complainant met the Opposite Party No.1 in order to withdraw the amount but the Opposite Party without entering the last payment made by the Complainant in their records despite of issuing a receipt made the Complainant to run post to pillars and refused to honour the claim nor repudiated the claim, hence this complaint.

The Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that, the policy had the lock in period of three years from its inception.  Since the Complainant not paid the 3^rd premium, the policy lapsed from 14.05.2008 and stated that he is not entitled any claim.

The Opposite Party No.2 who is an agent of Opposite Party No.1 stated that, this Opposite Party is only a collection agent of the 1^st Opposite Party and they are not aware as to what the Complainant has contracted with the 1^st Opposite Party under the policy.  If the Complainant has paid the premium to this Opposite Party, then this Opposite Party has issued the valid receipts to the Complainant for the receipt of the same and there is no role to play in the above said matter and stated that there is no liability.

The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C9.  Opposite Parties also filed evidence of RW1 and RW2.

On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence and admitted facts available on record, we find that, admittedly the Complainant obtained a Unit Linked Endowment Life Insurance Policy from the 1^st Opposite Party by paying Rs.30,000/- as yearly premium and the 1^st Opposite Party has issued the policy as per Ex C3 stated supra.  Under the above said policy, we noticed that, there is a lock in period of three years from its inception.  But in the instant case, the Complainant produced the original receipt i.e., Ex C4, C5 and C6 for Rs.30,000/- each paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 dated 04.04.2006, 23.05.2007 and 09.04.2008 respectively revealed that the Complainant paid yearly premium of Rs.30,000/- under three yearly premium.  The Opposite Party No.2 who is the agent issued a valid receipt to the Complainant.  When that being the case, the contention raised by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant not paid the 3^rd premium is not correct and also the contention took by the Opposite Party No.1 that the subject policy lapsed from 14.05.2008 is not acceptable.  In fact, the Complainant paid the 3^rd year premium on 09.04.2008 that means before one month from the date mentioned in the version i.e., 14.05.2008.  It is seen that, the Opposite Party No.1 and  2 despite of receiving the yearly premium from the Complainant and also issuing valid receipt as per Ex C4 to C6 not accepted the claim of the Complainant amounts to deficiency and also it shows their gross negligence towards the policy holder.

We observed that, the Insurance Companies like Opposite Party No.1 receiving the premium from the policy holders and without maintaining the proper records dragged the Complainant before this Forum and forced to engage a counsel in order to get a relief.  By considering the lapse on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we hold that the Complainant should be adequately compensated in this case.  The Opposite Party No.1 being a private Insurance Company cannot indulge in deficiency and they should have maintained a proper account for receipt of the amount.  But in the instant case, the Opposite Party No.1 without maintaining the proper records filed a bare version stating that the policy is lapsed which amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. 

 In view of the above discussion, we hold that, the Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited shall pay the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy issued by them.  Since the Complainant continuously paid premium for 3 years, the question of lapse of the policy does not arise as stated supra.  Hence, we direct the Opposite Party No.1 to honour the claim of the Complainant under the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy and also pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards harassment and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

 At the same time, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the erred official who committed lapse in this case by not maintaining / entering the receipt of the amount made by the Complainant.

Since there is no contract between the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.                                                                          

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and also pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

  On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.

Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of April 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.Shridhar Shet – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 29.07.2010: Lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Parties.

Ex C2 –     : Returned postal envelop along with postal acknowledgement.

Ex C3 –                : Life Insurance Policy of Bajaj Schedule Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Ex C4, C5 and C6: 04.04.2006, 23.05.2007 and 09.04.2008: Original receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each in favour of Complainant (3 in numbers).

Ex C7 – 13.04.2006: Original of the 1^st premium receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex C8 – 10.04.2006: Cash receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of the Complainant for a sum of Rs.30,000/-.

Ex C9 – 23.05.2007: Cash receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.1 in favour of Complainant for a sum of Rs.30,000/-.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 – Sri.Anish M.G., Assistant Branch Manager of the Opposite

Party No.1.

RW2 – Sri.Maya Prasad, Associate Vice President of the 2^nd

Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

• Nil -

Dated:30.04.2011                            PRESIDENT