Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/93/2015

Shekhar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sachin Gupta Adv.

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	93 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19.2.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	6.4.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shekhar Jain s/o Sh.  Parkash Chand Jain r/o H. No.4179/1-A, D.C. Road Ambala Cantt.              

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 (Maharashtra)

 

2.  The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO-2015-2016, 4^th floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Sachin Gupta, Adv.  

 

For OPs                 :     Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

     As per the case, the complainant by paying Rs.10,000/- obtained Bajaj ‘unit gain policy’ on the alluring assurance of the executive of the OPs that  he has to deposit Rs.10,000/- annual for three years and in the fourth year he needs only to deposit some amount and thereafter can withdraw the amount.  It is averred that the policy was issued on 28.3.2004 & the sum insured was to the tune of Rs.5 lakh as death benefit or maturity benefit as the case may be.   It is pleaded that OP No.1 told the complainant that it would not be compulsory to deposit any amount after paying three premiums and the policy will stand matured and the complainant will be entitled to the sum insured i.e. Rs.5 lakh.  It is alleged that after paying the premiums for three consecutive years the complainant approached the OPs many a times for payment of his maturity amount but nothing satisfactory was done by them. Subsequently, the Ops after a gap of 7 years vide letter dated 27.9.2014 intimated the complainant regarding termination of the policy from 7.8.2014 on account of non payment of regular premium.   The complainant raised protest against the same with OPs but all in vain.  Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

 

2       The Opposite Parties in their reply denied that the complainant was ever told that he has to deposit premium for three years and for fourth year he has to deposit some amount. It is asserted that the complainant himself had opted for a whole life regular premium unit linked unit gain policy and stipulated to pay the yearly premium  @10,000/- without any obligation  on the company to issue any notice thereof. It is denied that the complainant was promised to pay any fixed amount or maturity amount upon payment of three/four year premiums.  It is admitted that the complainant paid four premiums  for the policy in question upto 13.6.2007. It is further asserted that the complainant never raised any objection for more than 10 years and continued to enjoy the benefits including risk cover to the tune of Rs.5 lakh for a period of more than 10 years i.e. upto the date of termination of the contract i.e. 7.8.2014 without raising any dispute with regard to the terms and conditions of the policy meaning thereby he was satisfied with the policy in question. Further asserted that since the complainant did not take any steps to revive the policy within  the permissible period of five years from the date of last unpaid premium of the policy therefore, the policy was foreclosed as per terms and conditions of the policy and an amount of Rs.357/- was paid to the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5           From the perusal of the whole  record as well as the arguments submitted by both the parties it is observed that the complainant failed to prove that he was ever committed to pay maturity value of Rs.5 lakhs against the payment of three/four years premiums amounting to Rs.10,000/- each to be paid annually. But definitely there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who in spite receiving the four premiums of Rs.10,000/- each (as admitted in para 7 of the preliminary objection raised in the reply filed) failed in adhering to the terms and conditions of the policy in its strict term.   The OPs, in their reply claimed that the complainant did not pay the regular premium due on 30.3.2008 and did not take steps to revive the policy within the permissible period  of 5 years from the date of lapse of the policy, therefore, the policy was foreclosed as per the terms and conditions of the policy and an amount of Rs.357/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 27.9.2014. Simultaneously it is the stand of the OPs in its reply that since the complainant had paid four premiums therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy was kept in force. The above stands taken by the OPs are contradictory in nature; as on one hand they are claiming that the complainant failed to revive the policy within the permissible period of 5 years and on the other hand they are claiming that since the complainant paid 4 premiums so the policy was kept in force status.  Above all nowhere it is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy that revival period of the policy is 5 years as claimed by the OPs in their reply. Under column ‘surrender’as incorporated in the terms and conditions of the policy it is mentioned that the policy will acquire a surrender value after payment of 3 full years premiums. In the given case the complainant was not paid any surrender value despite the payment of 4 regular premiums paid annualy.  

6           In our considered opinion the OPs not only committed grave deficiency in calculating the amount of Rs.357/- but also indulged into unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss to the complainant who invested his hard earned money in the policy of the OPs by paying 4 regular annual premiums  (as admitted by the OPs) paid in between 2004-2008.

   

7           Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances in the given case, we deem it appropriate that the complainant be refunded his hard earned money (paid in the shape of four premiums) which remained invested through OPs for years together and in return gained just a meagre amount of Rs.357/- only which exposes the unscrupulous activities of the OPs affecting the gullible consumers like the complaint in the present case.  Accordingly we allow the complaint with the direction to the OPs to pay Rs.40,000/- minus Rs.10,000/- (the amount already withdrawn by the complainant) and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- for litigation cost.   

8                The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

6.4.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER