State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz Gen.Insurance Co. vs Pardeep Kumar on 20 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 431 of 2017 Date of Institution: 11.04.2017 Date of Decision : 20.02.2018 1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Dalal Complex, Near Raj Motors, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Branch Manager. 2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.7, 2nd Floor, Sector-14, Near Payal Cinema, Gurgaon-122001 through its Manager. 3. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, GVV Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its General Manager. Through Shri Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 215-217, Sector-34, Chandigarh. Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdev Singh, Village and Post Office Samchana, Pana Gur, Rohtak, Haryana. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Varun Chawla, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 20th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short 'the District Forum') in Complaint No.60 of 2014.
2. As per version of the complainant, he was provided life insurance policy bearing No.0052640370 under plan 'Bajaj Allianz New UnitGain Plus - SP' by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company') - Opposite Parties mentioning date of commencement as May 28th, 2007 and date of maturity as May 28th, 2012 on payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- as premium. The Sum Assured was as Rs.1,25,000/-. After expiry of date of maturity of the insurance policy, the complainant completed all necessary formalities and submitted his insurance claim. The opposite parties did not accept the full insurance claim of the complainant. On the other side full insurance claim of one Kuldeep Singh policy holder was accepted who was also provided the same policy regarding the same period and having same terms and conditions. The present complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.
3. The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct. It is admitted fact that the complainant was provided insurance policy bearing No.0052640370 under plan 'Bajaj Allianz New UnitGain Plus - SP' by the opposite parties for a period of five years mentioning date of commencement as May 28th, 2007 and date of maturity as May 28th, 2012 and sum assured as Rs.1,25,000/- after receiving an amount of Rs.25,000/- as premium. After date of maturity, the maturity amount of the insurance policy being Fund Value as Rs.25,415/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque No.80079 dated August 25th, 2012 as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant received the above mentioned full and final settlement amount without any protest. The complainant signed the proposal form and other documents concerned with the insurance policy after going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this way, the complainant objected for the single premium unit linked policy. The complainant was also offered 15 days Free Look Cancellation Period from the date of receipt of the insurance policy to review the terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant was provided life risk cover for a period of five years to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- till the date of maturity. The total maturity value of the policy being Fund Value has been paid to the complainant. The fund value has been calculated on the basis of fund opted under the respective policy and performance of each fund. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the opposite parties. Nothing more remains to be paid to the complainant. The opposite parties have prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.
4. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
5. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated February 20th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.31,293/- more to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. August 28th, 2012 and to pay an amount of Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses within one month from the date of decision failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decision.
6. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated February 20th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite parties have filed the instant First Appeal No.431 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
7. Despite service none appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant and as such the respondent-complainant was proceeded ex parte.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties and perused the case file.
9. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant was provided insurance policy bearing No.0052640370 under plan 'Bajaj Allianz New UnitGain Plus - SP' by the opposite parties mentioning date of commencement as May 28th, 2007 and date of maturity as May 28th, 2012 on payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- as premium. The Sum Assured was as Rs.1,25,000/-. Admittedly, the insurance premium of Rs.26,000/- was paid by the complainant vide receipt Exhibit C-1. It is also admitted fact that the opposite parties made payment of an amount of Rs.25,415/- vide payment reference dated August 28th, 2012 Exhibit C-5. The payment was made by cheque mentioning it as Fund Value of the policy on the date of maturity. The Cheque Paid Certificate dated July 29th, 2016 is Exhibit R-4 which shows that the amount was paid on September 27th, 2012. Version of the opposite parties is that after date of maturity of the insurance policy, the complainant was entitled to receive only Fund Value and the Fund Value as on that date was Rs.25,415/- as mentioned in detail in paragraph No.5 of the preliminary objections of the written version. Although the opposite parties mentioned the Fund Value on the date of maturity as Rs.25,415/- but the opposite parties did not place on the file any such document which may clearly show that the Fund Value on the date of maturity was Rs.25,415/-.
10. It is evident from the first premium receipt Exhibit C-1 and Commission Bill for the period June 01st, 2007 to June 15th, 2007 (Exhibit C-4) that the opposite parties provided another insurance policy under the same plan mentioning the same period of insurance policy from May 28th, 2007 up to May 27th, 2012 and sum assured as Rs.1,25,000/- and premium amount as Rs.25,000/- in the name of Kuldeep Singh. It is evident from the payment reference Exhibit C-1 regarding insurance policy provided to Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Jagdev Singh that an amount of Rs.56,708/- was paid to Kuldeep Singh vide cheque dated July 16th, 2012 being Fund Value on the date of maturity of the insurance policy. It appears that the opposite parties did not place on the file intentionally any such document to show that Fund Value of this insurance policy on the date of maturity was Rs.25,415/-. When the Insurance Company has already made payment of an amount of Rs.56,708/- to Kuldeep Singh who was provided the same insurance policy regarding the same period on the same terms and conditions, findings can be safely given that the complainant is also entitled to receive the same amount of Rs.56,708/- being Fund Value on the date of maturity of the insurance policy. Considering all these circumstances, the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order directed the opposite parties to make payment as Fund Value on the date of maturity equal to the amount paid to Kuldeep Singh. We found the opposite parties could not adduce any evidence to prove Fund Value of the insurance policy provided in the name of complainant. In view of this, the findings given by the learned District Forum are perfectly valid and justified and do not requires any interference.
11. No other point was raised during the course of arguments.
12. As a result as per discussion above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated February 20th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum holding that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.31,293/- more from the opposite parties alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and an amount of Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
20.02.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL