Delhi

New Delhi

CC/331/2015

Brij Mohan Wig - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI, DISTT. NEW DELHI

M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

CC/331/2015

D.No._________                                                  Dated:

SH. BRIJ MOHAN WIG

S/O SH. SATPAL WIG

R/O 7/6, PUNJABI BAGH EXTN.

WEST DELHI 110026                                                    COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MS. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

108, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR,

19 KG MARG, NEW DELHI                                             OPPOSITE PARTY

 

CORAM : MS. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

              SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

      MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

  

 

                                                                       

                                                                   Date of Institution: 21.05.2015

                                                           Date of decision:    15.12.2021

ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

ORDER

Heard Through Video Conferencing

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (OP) i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz Life insurance Co. Ltd. under section 11(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken the Policy bearing No.104725132 commencing w.e.f.31-07-2008 for a period of 10 years and paid the premium of Rs.1, 00,000/- on 07/08/2008 as the first annual installment. On 26/05/2010, he paid Rs.1, 00,000/- as second installment and received the receipts of the paid amount. It is alleged that the OP did not sent the original policy to the complainant. It is further averred that on the request letter dated 10/11/2010 whereby the complainant demanded copy of the Policy, OP did not confirm the sending details. Further, on 30/07/2013, complainant requested the OP that he may be allowed to pay the balance of premium in  two- three installments subject to condition of withdrawal of the amount after 12 months and also showed his readiness to sign the revival form. It is also alleged that OP out rightly terminated the Policy in question vide letter 27/08/2013 on the ground of non-payment of premium and sent a cheque of Rs.73,307/-which was not encashed by the complainant as the amount payable was more that Rs.2,00,000/- . It is alleged that the OP has wrongly withheld the difference of payment made by the complainant which is Rs.200,000/- as two installments and he is entitled to receive the withheld amount with interest. The complainant sent legal notice dated 01/12/2013 to the OP requesting to the same effect but no response was given to him till date by OP. The Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
2. OP was proceeded ex parte on its non-appearance despite service. The Complainant filed its evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the contents of the complainant.
3. The complainant proved one of the receipts dated 26.05.2010 as Ex. PW1/1, the letter dated 27-08-2013 regarding termination of Policy along with cheque of Rs.7,3307/- as Ex Pw1/7, the letter sent to OP to send the Policy and its postal receipts as Ex Pw1/3. The complainant has also relied on the photocopies of the letter for payment of balance installments, Statement of Accounts, the legal notice and its postal receipts which he has filed with the complaint.
4. We have perused the file and gone through Renewal Premium Intimation, original receipt of Payment of one installment and photocopy of other receipt, letters sent by the complainant, Letter of termination of Policy along with cheque and other relevant documents. On perusal of file, we note that the complainant paid the first annual installment of Rs.100, 000/- on 07/08/2008 and received the receipt of the said amount. Thereafter, the OP had sent to the complainant the Renewal Premium Intimation intimating the next installment being due on 07.08.2009. We observed that the second installment was paid on 26/05/2010 i.e. with a delay of more than 9 months and the complainant also received the receipt of the paid amount. The complainant had also sent a letter dated 10.11.2010 acknowledging to have received the said receipt and requested the OP for policy document.
5. Thereafter, after gap of three years, the complainant wrote a letter dated 30.07.2013, requesting the OP for revival of the foreclosure of the said policy. In the said letter, the complainant stated that due to non receipt of Policy he could not continue paying premium and the policy had lapsed. He further stated in the letter that he had received the Duplicate Policy in the year 2011 and he wanted to continue with the Policy by paying balance premium amount in 2-3 installments subject to the assurance that in case he wishes to withdraw after 12 months, the OP should inform him the total amount, he shall be entitled to receive.
6. On 30.03.2015, the OP sent a letter of termination of Policy stating that the said policy has been terminated due to non-payment of regular premium during revival period of two- three years from the due date of the last unpaid premium. It was further stated in the said letter that in view of the said action of termination, the surrender value of Rs.73307/- is being paid as per terms of the Policy.
7. In view of above circumstances, we are of considered view that since the insurance is a contract between the Insurer and the insured, both the parties are equally bound by the terms. In the present case, we note that admittedly, the complainant committed delay in payment of regular premium. The complainant was well aware that the delay in payment will lead to such lapse as is clearly written in the intimation letter for renewal that grace period is of 30 days. Further, in the letter dated 30.07 2013, the complainant himself admitted to have received the duplicate policy so this fact of non receipt of Policy document as alleged by him cannot justify his delayed payment.
8. In aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Commission is of the opinion that repudiation of the claim by the OP was as per terms and conditions of the policy. However, it is always the duty of the insurer to provide policy document without fail within reasonable time of issuing the policy and the terms and the conditions should be communicated to the insured. We observe that the terms of working out the surrender value in case of nonpayment has not been there beforehand in any document on record and same was not brought into the knowledge of the insured as well, hence, that balance of convenience lies in favour of the complainant. 

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that both the parties have been negligent in performing their respective part of contract/agreement in form of the policy in question. We therefore, direct the Opposite Party to refund to the complainant the difference of total amount paid towards premium i. e. Rs.200,000/-minus Rs.73307/- on account of their failure to bring into the notice of the complainant the condition of surrender value in case of default in payment.

Further, as the complainant has pleaded not to have encashed the cheque given by the Insurer as Surrender value and filed the said cheque in original, we direct the OP to revalidate the same.

With the above direction, the present complaint is disposed off with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

PRESIDENT

 

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER