Baja Allianz Life Insurance
This is a discussion on Baja Allianz Life Insurance within the Insurance forums, part of the Financial Services category; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President. And Smt. V.J. Praveena, Member. ...
- 09-03-2009, 08:13 AM #1Administrator
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Baja Allianz Life InsuranceOFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Wednesday, the 25th March, 2009.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.54/2008
1. Smt. P. Geeta, W/o late Rajendra Prasad,
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Household.
2. Vagu Boja Raju, S/o late Vagu Rajendra Prasad,
Age: 14 yrs, Occ: Student.
3. Vagu Ashwin Sail, S/o Vagu Rajendra Prasad,
Age: 8 yrs, Occ: Student.
Complainants No.2 and 3 are minors rep. by their
Natural mother and guardian Geeta i.e, complainant No.1.
All are resident of H.No.2-12-190, Vidyaranyapuri,
1. The Baja Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Area Manager, Office at Shop NO.9-11,
Green Square Plaza, Opp: Public Garden, Hanamkonda,
2. The Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Zonal Manager, Zonal office at 6th Floor,
New Block, White House, Kundanbagh, Begumpet,
3. The Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its chief Executive officer, Office at G.E. Plaza,
Airport Road, Yesawada, Pune.
… Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Mohd. Mahood, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite parties : Sri V. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
CC 54/2008 -- 2 --
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This complaint is filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay sum assured amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with interest and costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainants is that the complainant NO.1 is the wife and complainants 2 and 3 are the sons of Vagu Rajendra Prasad who died on 06-10-2006 due to fatal injuries caused in an accident. During his life time the deceased obtained Policy bearing NO.0010860960 on 09-09-2005 for sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/- by paying annual premium of Rs.25,000/- for which the complainants are the legal heirs. The deceased worked as Software Engineer in U.S.A and met with an accident in America on 26-04-2006 and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted and admitted in Innova Fair Fax Hospital there he was treated for four months and 15 days as he was in coma. Later arranged Special Management in the Flight and shifted to Hyderabad on 07-09-2006 and admitted in NIMS hospital and treated for 20 days. Then he shifted to Mediciti hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment he died on 06-10-2006. After the death of the deceased, as legal heirs the complainants submitted all the requisite papers to opposite parties for settlement of their claim, but the opposite parties did not settle the same. Hence, the complainants got issued legal notice on 12-04-2007 to opposite parties demanding to pay the sum assured with interest under the policy, for which no reply is received. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to pay sum assured amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest and costs.
The opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that it is true that the Rajendra Prasad obtained policy bearing NO.0010860960 on 09-09-2005 for sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/- and stated that there is no proof to show that the deceased V. Rajendra Prasad died an accidental death at U.S.A. Since there is no documentary proof to show that the deceased met with an accident in America and shifted him to India and died in India they are not liable to pay anything to the complainants and requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
CC 54/2008 -- 3 --
The complainants in support of their claim, filed the Affidavit of complainant No.1 in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. On behalf of opposite parties neither Affidavits nor documents filed.
Now the point for consideration is:
1)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2)If so, to what Relief?
In this case this Forum has to see whether the deceased Rajendra Prasad died an accidental death and the complainants are entitled to get the policy amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. For this our answer is that certainly the complainants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Because as per the version of the opposite parties by way of stating that there is no any documentary proof to show that Vaju Rajedendra Prasad met with an accident, that is the reason only the opposite parties are not liable to pay the policy amount. For this our answer is that it is true the complainants have not filed any documentary proof with regard to meting with an accident by Vaju Rajendra Prasad at America. What prevented the opposite parties to file the documents by way of saying that Rajendra Prasad not met with an accident. It is the duty of the opposite parties to file some of the documents before this Forum by way of saying that the deceased Rajendra Prasad has not met with an accident in America. Since the opposite parties have not filed any documentary proof like that certainly the version of the
complainants is true and correct. Because as per the complainants version it is true that Rajendra Prasad obtained policy bearing NO. 0010860960 on 09-09-2005 for sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/- by paying annual premium of Rs.25,000/-. The said policy was issued by the opposite parties. But unfortunately the husband of complainant No.1 and the father of complainants 2 and 3 met with an accident in America on 26-04-2006. The policy was issued on 09-09-2005. It is true one premium amount of Rs.25,000/- paid and he has to pay next premium amount in the year 09-09-2006 but unfortunately the deceased Rajendra Prasad met with an accident on 26-04-2006 and he died on 06-10-2006, only difference is within a gap of 30 days he died because the deceased Rajendra Prasad was hospitalized so that is the reason either the complainants or the deceased Rajendra Prasad might have not paid the premium amount. So it is not a big error on the part of the complainants. It is true the deceased’s death is accidental, because the opposite parties have not filed any documentary proof to show that the
CC 54/2008 -- 4 --
deceased Rajendra Prasad not died in an accident. So it is clear cut that the deceased met with an accident and died. Further the postmortem report i.e, Ex.A-4 also clearly goes to show that the deceased died with injuries. Since there is no any documentary proof from the opposite parties side we are of the opinion that the deceased died in accident and the complainants are entitled to get the policy amount and we answered this point accordingly in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties. Whether it is an accidental or natural death, irrespective of cause of death certainly the opposite parties are liable to pay the insured policy amount to the complainants who are the legal heirs of the policy holder i.e, deceased Rajendra Prasad.
Point NO.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties, this point is also decided in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties.
In the result, this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.One lakh twenty five thousand only) along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e, 27-03-2008 till the date of deposit. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to the opposite parties for the compliance of the order.
So far as the apportionment of amount is concerned, the complainant No.1 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.75,000/- and complainants No.2 and 3 are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.25,000/- each. The complainants No.2 and 3 being minors their respective shares will be ordered to be kept in any Nationalised bank till they attain majority. The complainant No.1 is entitled to receive upto date interest and costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 25th March, 2009).
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **
- 09-03-2009, 04:20 PM #2Administrator
REASONS POINTS 1&2: As per complainant her husband Sri.Narayan s/o.Kamanna Garadimani had taken a life insurance policy bearing no.71641868 by paying premium amount of Rs.2000/- thorugh DD for insured amount of Rs.408000 through R2 at Hubli which is a medical policy. Her husband died on 18-12-2007.
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
As per complainant though she applied for policy claim of her husband it is not settled inspite of issuing legal notice. The respondent-1 has contended that number 71641868 is the proposal form number and not the policy number. Such contention cannot be accepted because, in ECPL details the policy number, status, sum assured, name of insured, DD number, application number, name of bank etc., are mentioned. In that document no.71641868 is mentioned as policy number but not as proposal form number.
If it was the proposal form number, the respondent-1 would not have mentioned it as policy number. II (1993) CPJ 146 (NC) is relied on for R1. As per that decision before acceptance of proposal, proposer expired under such circumstance insurance company was not held liable. Such circumstance has not occurred in the instant case. An unreported decision rendered in appeal no.1482/1999 Jaipur State Redressal Commission is also relied on for R1 as per that decision mere payment of premium and its acceptance by the agent does not amount to a concluded contract of insurance. Whereas in the instant case, premium was not only paid by the proposer, on the other the respondents have given policy number to the proposer.
When policy number is given it is to be held that, the proposal has been accepted and policy was issued. It is therefore in the opinion of the forum those 2 decisions are of little help to R1. The respondent-1 claims to have returned the proposal form of husband of complainant but, it is returned stating he was no more. The respondent-1 has produced cover, a letter and Xerox copy of a cheque for Rs.22000/-. In the letter of R1 dtd.29-9-2008 said to be sent through that letter wherein policy number 0071641868 is clearly mentioned and not as proposal form number.
If respondent-1 had not accepted the premium amount of that Narayan Garadimani would not have given the policy number. This is the one point. Another point is that, through that letter R1 claims to have sent a cheque for Rs.22000/- its Xerox copy is also produced. When respondent-1 had not accepted the proposal of that Narayan Garadimani, what was the necessity to send a cheque for Rs.22000 when that Garadimani had paid only Rs.2000 towards premium amount.
This is the another circumstance to disbelieve the contention of respondent-1. Even on the cover of that letter below the address of Narayan Garadimani, policy number is mentioned but not as proposal form number. All these circumstances clearly go to show that respondent-1 has accepted the proposal of Narayan Garadimani and in consequence issued policy number but, now it has a taken a different stand. In the letter of R1 dtd.29-9-2008 it is stated that, Narayan Garadimani was not able to get the requirement under the above policy. In that letter it is not specifically mentioned as to what was to be done by that proposer.
At the time of argument it was much more contended for R1 that, that Narayan Garadimani was not subjected to medically checked, So, he had not complied with required condition so, his policy was not considered. Admittedly, it is a medical policy. When R1 received the proposal form along with premium amount whether it got him medically tested through its panel of doctors, nothing is whispered. Even it is not specifically stated by R1 that, it has no panel of doctors and it has no procedure to get any proposer medically checked, before accepting a proposal for insurance policy.
One more point was argued for R1 that, that Narayan Garadimani has suppressed a material fact of suffering from AIDS while submitting proposal form that is another circumstance to reject his proposal, Moreover, acceptance of proposal and issue of insurance policy mainly depends on good faith. No doubt an insurance company has to act upon on good faith but, that good faith does not only apply to proposers and it equally applies to insurance companies in view of a decision 2008 CTJ NCDRC 707. The complainant herself has produced certain documents some of them relate to medical treatment of her husband Narayan Garadimani. In those documents some ailments are mentioned such as fever chill, viral fever, pain in abdomen, cough etc., but those complaints were said to be since one month before admitting in Chigteri Dist. Hospital, Davanagere. But, those medical documents are subsequent to the proposal form.
In some documents the word AIDS is mentioned. But R1 has not produced any documents of hospital to show that proposer was suffering from AIDS. It is not proved by R1 that, that Narayan Gardimani had knowledge about his suffering from AIDS even then suppressing it, sent proposal form for medical insurance. This is one point. Another point is that, as already stated whatever medical documents are made available by complainant but not by the respondent-1 which show that, such suffering was subsequent to the proposal form and insurance policy given. As such it cannot be said that Narayan Garadimani had suppressed material fact suffering from AIDS.
Unless there is positive evidence about suppression of disease, insurance company cannot avoid payment in view of a decision 2008 CPR 96 NS As per another decision 2009 CTJ 37 NCDRC Non disclosure of suffering from fewer or down with flu on some occasions not a material matter. As per another decision 2009 CTJ 74 NCDRC, wherein their lordships have held that, in today’s world many people face problems of acidity, indigestion, back pain and head ache.
Some of them chronic and symptoms may occur from time to time with different levels of intensity, cannot be considered as disease leading to repudiation of insurance claims on that ground. In view of these reasons the contention of R1 that, Narayan Garadimani had suppressed about his disease while taking medical policy cannot be accepted. One more point was argued for R1 that, complainant has colluded with R2 and R2 is nothing to do with it. If R1 was not at all concerned then, why it received the proposal form and premium amount from R2 nothing is stated, even after receiving such proposal form and premium amount why it retained them for nearly 6 - 7 months without returning it at the earliest, nothing is stated. As such, such contention of R1 cannot be accepted.
Even the contention of R1 that, when proposal form was not accepted the question of issuing insurance policy itself had not arisen, cannot be accepted for the reasons already discussed. Even it was argued for R1 that, documents were not received. If necessary documents were not received then why it gave policy number, has not been clarified. The learned counsel for complainant has produced an unreported decision of the Hon’ble. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi rendered in Rev.Pet.No.702/2003 (Life Insurance Corporation and others V/s. Mrs. Rakshana Devi) dtd.20-10-2005, wherein their lordships have observed that the proposal shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period, not exceeding 15 days from the receipt of the proposal by the insurer. Further held that, in that case there was unjustifiable delay in accepting proposal dtd.28-10-1997 only on 2-3-1998. in that decision it is also further observed that, for human being death may be natural or accidental and it may happen at any point of time therefore, it is not a case of agreement contingent on impossible event.
In the instant case also proposal was said to be made prior to 1-9-2007 because, as per letter of the respondent-1 addressed to Narayan Garadimani dtd.1-9-2007 wherein it has expressed its happiness about the proposal made by him. If such proposal was not made R1 would not have written letter like so. Respondent-1 claims to have returned that proposal form on 29-9-2008 it means considerable delay has been caused by it, so the principles held in the above referred decisions can be applied to the instant case also. As per another decision 2008 CTJ (CP) SC 917 wherein their lordships have held that, insurance company being in dominant position often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of particular insured, disown that very figure on one pretext or other when called upon to pay compensation.
This “take it or leave it” attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being in bad in law but also ethically indefensible. After filing complaint notice was issued to respondents but inspite of service even R1 had also remained absent as such it was placed exparte. But subsequently R1 got it set aside which shows its attitude. Complainant had got issued legal notice to R1 but, R1 had not replied to it. In view of all these reasons it is held that non settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in service. Insured sum is Rs.408000/- if reasonable rate of interest is ordered separate order for mental agony and deficiency in service may not be necessary. However the complainant will be entitled to the cost of the litigation. Hence, the point.1 is answered in Positive and point.2 in Positive but accordingly. Point. 3: In view of the finding given on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the respondent-1 to pay insured sum Rs.4,08,000/- with 6% interest p.a payable from the date of complaint till its realization along with Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order is made against R2.
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **
- 09-19-2009, 04:03 PM #3
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Varinder Chand Head Constable s/o Ram Chand r/o Quarter No. 13, Police Colony, Banga Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr.
1 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager/GM/Concerned Official, Having Head office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada Pune 411006.
2 Senior Superintendent of Police Office, Nawanshahr through its Accounts Officer/ Concerned Official, SSP Office, Nawanshahr. ….Respondents
Varinder Chand (hereinafter called as complainant) has filed this complaint against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager/GM/Concerned Official, Having Head office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada Pune 411006 and Senior Superintendent of Police Office, Nawanshahr through its Accounts Officer/ Concerned Official, SSP Office, Nawanshahr (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1, and 2, respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to pay the amount of insurance claim as per policy alongwith interest and compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for mental as well as physical agony, in addition to Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant was employed as Head Constable in the office of SSP, Nawanshahr who had obtained “Group Master Term Insurance Policy” from OP No.1 for his employees including the complainant which was valid for the period from 21-07-2007 to 20-07-2008. The complainant had met with an accident on 30-03-2008 as a consequence of which his right leg below the knee had been amputated causing him 75 percent permanent physical disability. The complainant had requested Op No. 1 to sanction his insurance claim of Rs 1,00,000/- but so far his request is alleged to have been not accepted by this op. Hence this complainant.
3. In the written version op No.1, maintainability of the complaint had been challenged by Op No.1 on the ground that the policy covered only the death claim which becomes payable in the event of death of member insured. No other benefits are available to the insured member under this policy. Therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. On merits the facts relating to issuance of the policy were not denied. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.
4. Op No.2 also in its written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that this Op had been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. On merits it was denied that the complainant was called upon by Op No.1- insurer to supply to them the copy of driving of license held, if any, by him, but he kept on dilly-dallying the matter instead of furnishing the copy of driving license, he has filed the present complaint, to cover up his own wrongs.
5. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.
6. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.
7. From the written version filed by the Op No.1 it is evident that the policy in question was claimed to have covered only the death risk and the some assured was payable only in the event of death. Op no.1 has placed on record Ex R-1 the copy of the policy which clearly provides that the sum assured under the assurance shall become payable only in the event of death of the member whilst being a member of the Grantee provided the assurance is in force at that time. Thus it can be safely held that the policy in question was for a particular event and the claim under this policy was payable only in the event of death of the assured member. It does not cover the risk about the permanent physical disability of the assured. Therefore, the complaint is not legally maintainable.
8. Otherwise also from the assertion of the complainant as well as written version filed by Op No.2 it appears that no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the OPs. Therefore on this ground also the complaint was not maintainable being pre-mature.
9. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
- 09-19-2009, 04:14 PM #4
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
1. Raj Rani wife of late Sh. Sarup Chand.
2. Rahul son of late Sh.Sarup Chand.
3. Rohin son of late Sh. Sarup Chand.
4. Aruchi daughter of late Sh. Sarup Chand.
All resident of House no.853, Ward No.25, Samrala Road, Rishi Ramji Street, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Syndicate HUB, 1/1A, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi-110060, through its Branch Head.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune- 411 006, through its Chairman.
3. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Shanghai Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its branch Manager.
O R D E R
1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed by complainants no.1 to 4 being legal heirs of Sh. Sarup Singh life insured.
2. Briefly stated, case of the complainants is that Sh. Sarup Chand husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 to 4 , got himself insured with the opposite party by paying premium of Rs.5000/- vide DD No.303026 dated 2.11.2006, collected by Sh.Ajay Deep Singh Executive. Unfortunately, Sh. Sarup Chand died on 15.11.06. On approaching the opposite party for lodging the death claim against policy no.31221262 of Sh. Sarup Chand, they were astonished to know that opposite party failed to issue the policy even after receiving the premium.
Death of Sh. Sarup Chand was intimated to opposite party and all requisite documents were supplied. Their genuine claim was illegally repudiated in mechanical and predetermined manners against the provisions of law, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part, on account of which they suffered mental torture and agony. Complainants sought direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death claim and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Opposite parties contested the complaint taking the preliminary objections that the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands, concealed the material facts and they can not take benefit of their own wrongs. Averred that Sh. Sarup Chand proposed for a life insurance policy bearing no.0031221262 by filling the proposal form on 2.11.06 but he died on 15.11.06 i.e. within 15 days of filing the proposal form, qua which no intimation was given to them by anyone.
As per provisions of law contact is to be executed and valid when both the parties are alive. But in the instant case, the policy was issued on 7.12.2006 but late Sh. Sarup Chand (life insured) expired on 15.11.06 i.e. prior to issuance of the policy. Therefore, the contract of insurance is void. On the date of death of life insured, there was no valid contract and they are not liable to make any payment. The complaint has been filed without any cause of action. Averred that on every receipt of issue, it is specifically mentioned that insurance cover shall commence only from the date of acceptance of the risk based on the proposal papers submitted and called for.
But in the instant case, proposal form was filled on 2.11.06, they processed the application and issued policy on 7.12.06. However, life insured Sh. Sarup Chand died on 15.11.06 i.e. before issuing of the policy, so, he can not take the benefit of his own wrongs. Payment of premium amount of Rs.5000/- is admitted. Death of life insured was conveyed after a long time. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. In view of the facts, detailed above, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that late Sh. Sarup Chand paid premium of Rs.5000/- to Sh. Ajay Deep Singh Executive of M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited through DD No. 303026 dated 2.11.2006 and policy no.3122262 was issued by the insurance company on 7.12.06.
The proposal form of Sh. Sarup Chand was handed over to the Executive of the Insurance Company Sh. Ajay Deep Singh on 2.11.2006 along with the demand draft. After the death of Sh. Sarup Chand insured, his widow Smt. Raj Rani applied for a claim against the death of her husband on 15.11.2006 and completed all the formalities by providing all the requisite documents to the opposite party, which was repudiated in predetermined mechanical manners against the provisions of law. It has been further argued that Sh. Sarup Chand expired on 15.11.2006 and the claim against his death is genuine and payable by the Insurance Company. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Khanna had also vide letter dated 12.12.2007 Ex.AW2/2 written to the Insurance Company that their representative Sh. Ajay Deep Singh had collected the demand draft dated 2.11.2006 from the bank for further necessary action for issuance of the insurance policy.
6. Ld.counsel for the opposite party argued that that they have received the proposal form for life insurance of Sh. Sarup Chand on 23.11.2006 Ex.RW1/1 along with a cheque bearing no.303026 dated 2.11.2006 Ex,.RW1/2 on account of premium for issuing the insurance policy and after completing all the formalities the policy no.0031221262 dated 7.12.06 Ex.RW1/4 was issued. Sh. Sarup Chand life assured died on 15.11.2006 i.e. within 15 days of filling of the proposal form and the opposite party was not informed about his death by anyone.
As per the company rules, contract becomes complete and valid when the proposal form is accepted and insurance policy is issued. But in this case, the policy was issued on 7.12.2006 and the life insured Sh. Sarup Chand expired on 15.11.2006, prior to issuing of the insurance policy. Therefore, contract of insurance between the parties is void. This is one of the material point for repudiation of the claim because when the policy is null and void, the opposite party is not bound to make payment against this policy under any claim.
7. From the above facts and figures, it is quite obvious that the demand draft no.303026 dated 2.11.2006 for Rs.5000/-was given by Syndicate Bank to Sh. Ajay Deep Singh Executive for insuring late Sh. Sarup Chand but when Sh. Ajay Deep Singh Executive has submitted the demand draft to the Company before 23.11.2006 is not known and the demand draft which was given by Syndicate Bank to Sh. Ajay Deep Singh Executive as per record of the insurance company was submitted on 23.11.2006 Ex.RW1/1. In such circumstances, it is clear that after receiving the premium, the insurance company has perused the matter and the policy was issued on 7.12.2006 Ex. RW1/4 to Sh. Sarup Chand son of Sh. Piara Lal. From the facts, it is clear that the proposal form was given to Sh. Ajay Deep Singh Executive of Insurance Company.
The contract is not concluded unless and until the proposal form is accepted by the insurer. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a case reported in 1 (1997) CPJ 459, of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla, in case titled as Sureshta Devi & Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another case reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1014 in civil appeal no.2197 of 1970 dated 27.3.1984 titled as life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and others. We are again strengthened in the respect from the findings of the Hon’ble National Commission in case reported as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Girdharilal P. Kesarwani, 2009 CTJ 406 (CP) and Harshad J. Shah and another Vs. LIC of India and others, AIR 1997 SC, 2459 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Fora reached at the conclusion that the claim submitted by Smt. Raj Rani wd/o the deceased Sh. Sarup Chand insured to the opposite party is not tenable as the policy no.31221262 was issued by the insurance company on 7.12.2006 and her husband expired unfortunately on 15.11.2006.
It is also to mention here that there was absolutely no material on the record showing that the proposal form was accepted by the insurance company before death of the insured Sh. Sarup Singh. And policy was issued before his death. The contract of insurance is concluded only when the party to whom the offer is made, accept it and merely giving the premium to the Executive of the company, does not entitle the legal heirs of the insured for the insured amount and its agent have no authority to accept the premium on behalf of the insurance company.
8. Therefore, the Fora reached at the conclusion after going through the discussions above and facts that the complaint merit less as the insurance policy was issued on 7.12.2006 i.e. after the death of life insured and the insured expired on 15.11.2006. Hence, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
- 09-19-2009, 04:45 PM #5
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Davinder Kumar son of Late Surinder Pal r/o. Village Bholewal Kadim, District Ludhiana.
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.
2. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited, branch Office, Phillour through authorized signatory.
O R D E R
In this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant has sought direction against the Opposite parties to settle Insurance claim of his father late Sh. Surinder Pal as per insurance policy and to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- for harassment.
2. Case of the complainant is that his father had obtained insurance cover policy dated 12.06.2006 vide serial no.3042673 and 3042674 by paying fee of Rs.5000/- and Rs.10000/- against both insurance covers. Opposite parties orally have disclosed tenure of insurance cover policy of five years. During the tenure of insurance cover insured Sh. Surinder Pal died due to natural death on 03.12.2007. Claim was lodged with opposite parties but not settled the claim. Such act is claimed amounting to deficiency and negligence in service by opposite parties. Hence the compliant.
3. Opposite parties is proceeded exparte. Opposite parties got the exparte proceedings setaside and then took adjournments for filing written statement etc., and thereafter for effecting compromise. Subsequently, failed to affect compromise, written statement and also failed to appear before the Fora. Accordingly proceeded against exparte on 29.04.2009.
4. Complainant in exparte proceedings tendered his evidence. We have heard Ld.counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
5. In support of allegations, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA1 and also receipts Ex.C4 on serial no.3042674 and Ex.C5 on serial no.3042673 vide which premium on 12.06.2006 was paid to the Opposite parties through cheques. Mention in receipts that insurance cover shall commence from the date of acceptance of risk based on proposal.
6. These receipts were issued to father of the complainant who applied for insurance and paid insurance amount of Rs.5000/- and Rs.10000/-, but no policy stands issued to him.
7. Hence, we have no reason to disbelieve claims of the complainant that the policy purchased by his father was for five years.
8. This act of Opposite parties for non-issuing or not settling the claim certainly would amount to deficiency in service on there part. Hence complaint is allowed.
9. Accordingly, Opposite parties directed to settle insurance claim lodged by the complainant of his father, in terms and conditions of the insurance policy prepared on the basis of premium receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 by the Opposite parties and in case complainant proves death of his father then, to pay insurance amount to the complainant within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. For harassment to the complainant and compel to come to Fora to seek insurance claim Opposite parties ordered to pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.
- 02-09-2010, 01:21 PM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Baja Allianz Life Insurance
My name is Krishan Kumar. I am residing in # 742, sec 38 A, Chandigarh.
Sir I had taken one "SINGLE PREMIUM POLICY No.0081734262" dated on 08, Jan,
2008. At the time of purchase of manually told I had given just Rs 15000/-
for one year but on the next day they were changed there commitment & they
said your policy is not for one year it’s for a one & half yearly. That time
I thought it’s a not long period. My agent ( form Branch office-- sec 34,
Chandigarh) that name is ANIL BHATIYA told that said amount will be locked
for one & half years & after that I will entitle to withdraw said Amount
with Interest. But after locked period when I consult Bajaj Alliance for
withdraw mentioned amount. I was surprised to know that mentioned policy was
not one time investment as I have to pay another Rs 15000/- as installment
else my previous amount will be lapsed which was never informed by agent who
sale me mentioned Policy. I had tried to call many times to Bajaj Alliance
Company that it was cheated to me but no one from Insurance Company is not
ready to listen my complaint & every time they told me that me that you have
to check & read each Terms & Conditions before purchasing any policy. I
request you all to kindly interfere in my complaint as I am not getting any
response form Insurance Company & they are not ready pay my actual amount
which I had paid ( Rs 15000/-).
So sir its my humble request to you please sort out the problem and
reveres me to my money Rs 15000/- because I am middle class employee working
with a privet company. & that amount is very huge for me it’s not a small
Policy No. 0081734262
Phone no. 9646109541/9417470259
- 11-05-2010, 12:22 PM #7Unregistered Guest
Sir this is with respect to devi prasad das holding the policy no. 0038342940 has locked his account yesterday before 3 pm.now he is unable to view his account value at present.so kindly inform us about it by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org
- By amitparashar in forum Life InsuranceReplies: 45Last Post: 11-17-2012, 01:01 PM
- By Unregistered in forum Other InsuranceReplies: 11Last Post: 06-11-2011, 01:25 PM
- By pankajagarwal19 in forum InsuranceReplies: 6Last Post: 04-13-2011, 11:08 AM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 01:49 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 01:06 PM