Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/178/2010

B.A.Gurunandhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr.K.B.T.

22 Dec 2010

ORDER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency of service in not paying back their premiums paid by him after surrendering the policy.

 

1. The complainant in support of alleged deficiency of service has stated that he was a policy holder of O.Ps. company bearing no.0085088164 under Bajaj Allianz Century plus plan.

 

1. The complainant has invested bought policy as per say of the sales manager one Manjunath. As per the oral instruction of said Manjunath the complainant  intended to invest Rs.10,000/- per year under the said plan.  The sales manager  done mischief coating Rs.25,000/- per year in the proposal form instead of Rs.10,000/- per year.  The complainant  incurred hardship to pay premium of Rs.25,000/- per year due to mischief of sales manager. The complainant was not interested to continue the policy as he lost  trust in the company.

 

1. The complainant has intended to surrender the policy and take back his amount and for this reason issued legal notice to O.Ps. stating that the complainant intends to surrender the policy and to receive back his amount with interest.

 

1. The legal notice has been served to the O.Ps and the O.Ps. have sent reply stating that the policy can be surrendered only after three years. There is no such type of condition to surrender the policy after three years. The O.Ps. have given evasive reply and non-compliance of the complainant’s request has resulted in deficiency of service.

 

1. The O.Ps. have admitted that the complainant took the policy from them and they have denied other allegations made by the complainant against them.

 

1. The O.Ps. have stated that the complainant applied for a century plus policy and in this regard the proposal form  was signed by him and gave a cheque towards 1^st premium of Rs.25,000/-. On receipt of proposal form and cheque for the 1^st premium, the proposal was accepted by the O.Ps.

 

1. The proposal was duly filled by the complainant and the policy shows the details. The complainant has not deposited the 2^nd premium. As a good gesture, the O.Ps approached the complainant apprising about non deposit of 2^nd premium. The complainant told the O.Ps. that he is not interested to continue the policy and has failed to deposit the 2^nd premium voluntarily and accordingly the policy has lapsed  as per condition 5(1). According to which in the event failure to pay of full regular premium  falling due  during the first three policy years and non payment of complete amount due within grace period the policy shall automatically and immediately lapses for the insurance cover to the policy holders.

 

1. The complainant has not denied the receipt of the policy documents and thereafter even after  the receipt they never opted  for return of the policy documents or objected  as  issuance of policy disputed premium  which clearly  indicates that he was satisfied about the policy as issued.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complainant shows that there is deficiency in service by the O.Ps. to him?
   2. What  order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings for the following points are that

Point No.1: Negative.

Point No.2: As per order.

 

REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The complainant alleges the deficiency of service on the ground that when he took proposal of policy from the O.Ps. he was misguided  by one Manjunath  by saying yearly     premium of Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.25,000/-.  He came to know that the yearly premium is Rs.25,000/- only after the receipt of the policy and thereafter he came to know the  mischief done  and thereafter he sent legal notice to the O.Ps. to surrender the policy and asked them to pay back the money paid by him.

 

1.  The O.P. have denied  any deficiency of service by them to the complainant and on the otherhand they stated that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and has accepted the proposal and issued cheque for Rs.25,000/- being the 1^st premium towards policy plan which he took from the O.Ps and the complainant failed to pay the 2^nd instalment even after grace period and therefore the policy has automatically lapsed.

 

1. In order to establish the deficiency of service the complainant has to show that he was misguided  at the time of accepting the proposal by him. The entire case of the complainant is  that he was misguided by one Manjunath who is agent of O.P. by stating that annual premium of Rs.10,000/-. Surprisingly he found annual premium was Rs.25,000/- and at that time he came to know the mischief  done by Manjunath. The O.Ps. have produced cheque issued by the complainant for Rs.25,000/-. The complainant has not given any explanation why he issued cheque for  Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- per year, if really the annual premium was Rs.10,000/-. The entire averments made in the complaint does not show  he  signed blank cheque and after that cheque  was written  by said Manjunath.  As long as he has not stated about the same,  it has to be inferred  that it is the complainant who  has written in figures Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in words in the cheque it would only  shows that the complainant was aware of  annual premium was Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.10,000/-

 

1. The complainant is very silent except stating that the sales manager Manjunatha has done mischief of annual premium of  Rs.25,000/-   in the proposal instead of Rs.10,000/- per  year. It is not his case that he signed blank proposal form and  that was filled up by sales manager  after he signed the form. Considering this the mischief alleged by  him against the sales manager cannot be accepted. In view of the this the proposal offered by the O.Ps. and the acceptance of the proposal by the complainant for a premium of Rs.25,000/- per year has been established.

 

1.  The facts of the O.Ps. are that the policy has lapsed an account of non payment of 2^nd premium event after the grass period. This stands of the O.Ps. has probabalised from the facts that the complainant has not surrendered the policy immediately after receiving the same which shows that the annual premium was Rs.25,000/-. This would only show that the policy has lapsed even before the complainant issued legal notice showing his intention to surrender the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the amount paid by the insurer towards the lapse policy could be asked only after three years and this could  also show that there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

 

1. The terms and conditions of the policy shows that in case non payment of the premium  the policy  holder is entitled for surrender value of  policy of terms and conditions of section 6(c) and this can be done only  after the expiry of revival period of only 03 years. Considering this it can be stated that there is no deficiency of serviced as alleged by the complainant. In view of the above reason    point no.1 is in the negative.

 

1. In view of the following

 

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.