State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance ... vs Mr.Rames Shah And Ors on 31 January, 2019
A/17/1103
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No. A/17/1103
(Arisen out of order dated 05/04/2017 passed in complaint No.586/2012 by Addl.
District Mumbai Suburban)
M/s.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through the Authorised Representative
Mrs.Uma Iyer
Having office at G.E. Plaza,
Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune - 411 006. ...........Appellant (s)
Versus
1. Mr.Ramesh Shah
(Org. complainant being LR of
Deceased Mrs.Asha Shah)
Residing at Birla Mansion 1,
4th floor, V.P. Road, Prarthana Samaj,
Mumbai - 400 004.
2. Mr.Samir Shah
(Org. complainant being LR of
Deceased Mrs.Asha Shah)
Residing at Birla Mansion 1,
4th floor, V.P. Road, Prarthana Samaj,
Mumbai - 400 004.
3. Ms.Sushma Shah
(Org. complainant being LR of
Deceased Mrs.Asha Shah)
Residing at Birla Mansion 1,
4th floor, V.P. Road, Prarthana Samaj,
Mumbai - 400 004. ............Respondent (s)
BEFORE:
Justice A.P. Bhangale PRESIDENT
D.R. Shirasao JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Mr.Mahesh Sahasrabuddhe, Advocate
Appellant: for appellant.
For the Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for
Respondent: respondents.
Page 1 of 6
A/17/1103
ORDER
Per Shri D.R. Shirasao, Hon'ble Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.586/2012 on 05/04/2017 directing the opponent to pay amount of Rs.10,24,659/- to the complainants along with interest on that amount along with costs of litigation, opponent has preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
The original complainant-Asha Ramesh Shah filed complaint for getting balance amount of her maturity claim of Rs.10,24,659/- from opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation. She has submitted that she had taken Unit Linked Plan of Bajaj Allianz (Equity Growth Fund) from opponent. The policy was bearing No.0024457555 and it was issued for period of five years from 2006 to 2011. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.5 Lakhs. She had paid the premium amount of policy of Rs.5 Lakhs for three consecutive years. She submitted that as per terms of the policy i.e. schedule at the end of the policy period she was entitled to get guaranteed return of 14% p.a. on premium paid or the N.A.V. whichever is higher. On maturity of claim on 21/07/2011 complainant had given letter to opponent for withdrawing of her fund. At that time she had claimed amount as per policy and scheduled attached to the policy. She had made claim of Rs.25,47,959/- to the opponent as per schedule of the policy. However, opponent had returned the amount of premium paid by complainant to her of Rs.15,23,300/- only to her. It is the contention of the complainant that as per schedule of the policy she is entitled to get remaining amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent. Hence, she had given notice in that respect to the opponent on 19/01/2012. On refusal by opponent, complainant filed consumer complaint against the opponent claiming Page 2 of 6 A/17/1103 above said amount from the opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation.
Opponent contested the complaint by filing written version on record. They submitted that policy of complainant was Unit Linked and hence there was no guaranteed return for the said policy. They submitted that Schedule produced by the complainant along with policy is forged and fabricated document and it is not bearing signature of then CEO of opponent by name Mr.Sam Ghosh. They submitted that on the date of maturity they have already given amount to the complainant for which she was entitled to get on the basis of that policy. She is not entitled to get additional amount as she claimed from the opponent. Hence, they submitted that complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
Considering rival contentions of the parties, evidence adduced by them on record and documents filed on record, the Learned District Forum had come to conclusion that as per Schedule of the policy at the end of five years, complainant was entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- from the opponent. However, opponent had only paid amount of Rs.15,23,300/- to the complainant and hence, the Learned District Forum had directed the opponent to pay balance amount of Rs.10,24,659/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount along with costs of litigation. Being aggrieved by the same, opponent has preferred this appeal.
Heard Learned Advocate appearing for appellant/opponent. He submitted that policy of complainant is Unit Linked policy. In such kind of policy there is no fixed return on the maturity of the policy. Complainant is entitled to get amount as per market prevailing at that stage. They have already paid the amount to the complainant to which she was entitled. He submitted that complainant is not entitled to get fixed return as per Schedule of policy filed on record. The document produced on record is forged and fabricated and it is not bearing signature of CEO of Page 3 of 6 A/17/1103 opponent. In that respect opponent has already given report in the Police Station and Police is investigating the matter. However, the Learned District Forum had not considered all these facts and directed the opponent to give balance amount of Rs.10,24,659/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount. Hence, he submitted that the order passed by the Learned District Forum be set aside and complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
Heard Learned Advocate appearing for respondents/legal heirs of original complainant-Asha Shah. He submitted that at the time of taking policy, opponent had provided policy of insurance along with Schedule. The Schedule is part and parcel of the insurance policy given to the complainant. As per this Schedule, complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- at the end of five years. It is so mentioned in the Schedule of the Policy. Complainant is claiming that amount accordingly from the opponent. He submitted that when it is the contention of opponent that this Schedule is forged and fabricated, then burden is on them to prove the same. However, in that respect they have not produced sufficient evidence on record. In absence of same, opponent is duty bound to pay the amount to the complainant as mentioned in the Schedule of policy. The Learned District Forum had considered the same and directed the opponent to pay that much amount to the complainant. Hence, he submitted that the order passed by the Learned District Forum be confirmed by dismissing this appeal.
On perusal of record it has become clear that the org. complainant- Asha Shah had taken Unit Linked Policy (Equity Growth Fund) from the opponent. Copy of Insurance Policy is filed on record. As per this policy, it has become clear that policy was for the period 2006 to 2011. Complainant had to pay annual premium of Rs.5 Lakhs to the opponent. Accordingly complainant had paid three annual installments total Page 4 of 6 A/17/1103 amounting to Rs.15 Lakhs to opponent. She has not paid further installments of opponent. There is no evidence on record that opponent had given any letter to the complainant about lapse of her policy. Hence, it has become clear that policy given to the complainant is continued for five years. At the end of five years, complainant had demanded amount from the opponent. However, opponent had paid deposited premium of Rs.15 Lakhs along with Rs.23,300/- to complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that as per Schedule of Policy, she is entitled to get total amount of Rs.25,47,959/-. Hence, she has claimed balance amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent along with interest on that amount.
Appellant/opponent has mainly contested the complaint on the ground that this Schedule of Policy produced by the complainant is forged and fabricated document. In that respect opponent has also given report in the Police Station and Police investigated the matter by recording statements of witnesses. However, up till now there is no outcome of Police investigation. Hence, it has become clear that up till now Police has also not come to conclusion that the Schedule is forged and fabricated document. On perusal of the Schedule it has become clear that it is bearing signature of Mr.Sam Ghosh, then CEO of opponent along with seal of opponent. Hence, unless there is any sufficient evidence on record it cannot be considered that the Schedule of Policy produced on record by the complainant is forged and fabricated document. As per recital of this Schedule, complainant had to deposit premium of Rs.5 Lakhs for three consecutive years. After payment of this premium for three consecutive years, at the end of five years, she was entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/-. In this Schedule it has been specifically mentioned that this Schedule is integral part of the policy document of complainant- Mrs.Asha R. Shah. It is also bearing policy number of complainant along with date of issuance of that policy.Page 5 of 6
A/17/1103 Considering all these facts and as opponent failed to bring sufficient evidence on record that this Schedule is forged and fabricated document, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- from the opponent. However, opponent has only paid amount of rs.15,23,300/- to complainant. Hence, complainant is entitled to get balance amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent. Learned District Forum has rightly considered the same and directed the opponent to pay this much amount along with interest on that amount to the complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Learned District Forum is to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the Learned District Forum, Mumbai Suburban is hereby confirmed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 31st January 2019.
[ Justice A.P. Bhangale ] PRESIDENT [ D.R. Shirasao] JUDICIAL MEMBER dd Page 6 of 6