Orissa

Cuttak

CC/130/2019

Sukhamaya Samaddar - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO,Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S Samaddar

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.130/2019

Sukhamaya Somaddar,

S/O:Late Rohini Somaddar,

At:Television Lane,Tulasipur,

P.S:Bidanasi,Dist/Town:Cuttack.                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager,Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

3^rd Floor,Radhika Complex,

Cuttack Road,Budheswari,Jharpada,Bhubaneswar,

                                Dist:Khordoha,Pin-751006.

 

2.        The Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

At:Plot No.2332,Word No.23,Shantikunj Building,

Link Road,P.O:Arunodoya Nagar,Dist./Town:Cuttack,Pin-753012.

 

3.        C.E.O,Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

At:GE Plaza,Airport Road,

Yerawada,Pune,Maharastra,India,Pin-411006....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.10.2019

Date of Order:  05.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. Sisir Somaddar,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :           Mr. Chinmoy Patra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                     

            Case of the complainant in nutshell is that he being a Senior Citizen in order to protect his health, had made one insurance policy with the O.Ps on 10.5.11 and had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards Single Premium Amount thereby had received the money receipt vide sl.no.c1774731 dt.10.5.2011.  The said insurance was effective from 10.5.11 and the assured sum was of Rs.2,50,000/- having maturity date as 11.5.21.  The said Policy bearing no.21749392 was effective for 10 years.  On 24.2.18 the complainant had received a payment reference of termination of the said policy wherein it was mentioned that the policy of the complainant was terminated due to non-payment of regular premium.   Alongwith the said letter the surrender value of Rs.836/- through cheque no.300304 dt.24.2.18 of Axis Bank Ltd. was also sent to the complainant.  Being harassed thoroughly, the complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps and with the allegation that they had practised unfair trade.  The complainant had thus claimed to direct the O.Ps in order to provide him another policy with the same assured sum free of cost or in the alternative for returning the complainant the invested amount alongwith interest as accrued thereon.  The complainant has also prayed to direct the O.Ps for paying him compensation towards his harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- together with the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant has further sought for any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Commission.

            The complainant has filed xerox copy of his policy.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have contested this case and have conjointly filed their written version.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant had purchased Unit Linked Wealth Gain 11 Policy which was effective from 11.5.11 with date of maturity as 11.5.21.  It was an yearly premium to be paid and the first premium of Rs.50,000/- had been paid by the complainant.  The said policy had an assured sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and the nominee of the complainant was one Sisir Kumar Samaddar.  The O.Ps in their version have further mentioned that proposal form at page no.2 clearly signifies the entire policy which is well within the knowledge of the complainant and by not paying the premium, the policy was to be terminated as per violation of the terms and conditions. Thus,  there was no deficiency in service, no practice of unfair trade and it is for this, the O.Ps have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant seeking a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for filing a false and  frivolous case. 

            The O.Ps have also filed copies of the proposal form as has been filled up by the complainant alongwith the terms and conditions as envisaged therein.

3.         Keeping in mind the contentions of the complaint petition and that of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            1.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant?

            iii.        Whether the O.Ps had practised unfair trade?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issues No.ii & iii.

            Issues no.2 & 3 being the pertinent issues are taken up first for consideration.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had entered into a policy with the O.Ps and had filled up proposal form through their agent Tapaswini Das.  The copy of the said proposal form when perused, it is noticed that the premium amount has been reflected therein to be of Rs.50,000/-.  It is also admitted that maturity value of the said policy was of Rs.2,50,000/- and the maturity date was 11.5.21.  But according to the complainant, the premium of Rs.50,000/- as paid by him during the inception of the proposal was a Single Premium Amount, which, according to him is the one-time premium and he was under no obligation to pay any other premium for the said policy.  To the contrary, it is the contention of the O.Ps that having not paid the regular premiums, the policy of the complainant was terminated by them due to violation of the terms and conditions of the said policy.  The complainant though has urged that it was a Single Premium Policy, he has not substantiated his claim accordingly by way of putting forth any documentary evidence.  On the other hand, the O.Ps have filed copies of the terms and conditions of the policy contract showing that it was the complainant who was at fault by not paying the premium for which they had to terminate the policy and as per the termination rule and the surrender value was given to the complainant by way of a cheque amounting to Rs.836/- only.  Thus, from the documentary evidence as available it can never be said that the policy in question was a Single Premium Policy and that the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Likewise, it also cannot be said that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade here in this case.  Accordingly, these two important issues are answered against the complainant.

Issues No.i & iv.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 5^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                                             President

 

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                                          Member.