Haryana

Sonipat

CC/98/2016

Jitender Dahiya S/o Late Shri Ram Kishan Dahiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rahul Lakra

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.98 of 2016

                                Instituted on:06.04.2016                                             Date of order:13.06.2016

 

Jitender Dahiya son of late Ram Kishan Dahiya, resident of H.No.2/153, near Old Court, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

1.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., D.7, 2^nd Floor, Pawan Mega Mall in front of HDFC Bank, Subhash Chowk, Atlas road, Sonepat.

2.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd. SCO 226 Ist & IInd Floors Sector 12, Karnal.

3. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd. GE Plaza, Air port Ropad, Yarwa, Pune (Maharashtra State).

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Rahul Lakra Advocate for complainant.

           Respondents ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 28.9.2007 he had purchased one insurance policy in the name of his daughter Khushi Dahiya for Rs.1 lac from the respondents under the proposal of Capital Unit Gain on payment of Rs.10,000/- as annual installment premium  i.e. with effect from 28.9.2007 to 28.9.2027.  The policy certificate no.0067896053 dated 28.9.2007 were sent to the complainant.  However, after minutely going through the term and conditions as mentioned in the Brochure of the respondents, the complainant disagreed with the policy and tried to cancel the same. The complainant continued to deposit the installments of the said policy annually upto the year 2014 under pressure.  Now the complainant because of his ill-health is unable to continue with the said policy and he has requested the respondents so many times to refund the amount deposited by him, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.        Notice to the respondents were sent through registered post, but none from the side of the respondents has come present before this Forum.  Accordingly, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.05.2016.

 

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that he has purchased policy no.0067896053 dated 28.9.2007 from the respondents in the name of his daughter namely Khushi Dahiya.  After minutely going through the term and conditions as mentioned in the Brochure of the respondents, the complainant disagreed with the policy and tried to cancel the same. The complainant continued to deposit the installments of the said policy annually upto the year 2014 under pressure.  Now the complainant because of his ill-health is unable to continue with the said policy and he has requested the respondents so many times to refund the amount deposited by him, but of no use.

 

          It is also submitted that the complainant is also under heavy debt of certain persons and due to this, he has decided to discontinue to deposit the annual premium of the said insurance policy.  The complainant had tried to contact the respondents no.2 and 3 but of no use. The complainant has also made calls on toll free no.18002097272 twice but the complainant did not receive any response from them.  The complainant has also sent a letter to the respondents on 19.2.2016 intimating them to terminate the said policy and to refund his amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant.  But the respondents did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

 

          In the present complaint, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.80,000/- with the respondents i.e. Rs.10000/- per year w.e.f. 2007 to 2014.   When he has requested the respondents for the refund of his deposited amount, all his requests have ended into smoke.  Even the respondents in the case in hand are proceeded against ex-parte, whereas it was their duty to come present before this Forum for defending the case, but they have failed to do so.  In their absence, we have no hesitation to accept the pleadings of the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/-  alongwith saving bank interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to issue the FDR of the awarded amount in the name of Khushi Dahiya for a period of Seven Years from any Nationalized Bank till the period Khushi Dahiya attains her majority.  However, it is made clear here that if Khushi Dahiya attains the majority prior to the date of maturity of the FDR, in that event, she will be at liberty to get the pre-matured payment of the FDR.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:13.06.2016