Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

749/2009

R.Sathyanarayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,& others - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

24 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                Date of Complaint Filed    : 20.07.2009

                                                                                                                                                Date of Reservation           : 24.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                Date of Order                      : 24.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                                                          Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.749/2009

   FRIDAY, THE 24^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021                                

 

R.Sathyanarayanan,

GA, Block5, Ramaniyam Stone Arc Apartments,

Bharathi Nagar Main Road,

Thiruvanmiyur,  Chennai 600 041.                                                                                         .. Complainant.                                                                

..Versus..

1.M/sBajai Allianz General Insurance Company limited,

   College Road, Chennai – 6.

 

2.M/s.IEP Insurance Broking service private limited,

   85,Park View Basement II

   G.N.Chetty Road,

   T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.

 

3.The Assistant Secretary,

   Office of the Insurance Ombudsman,

   Fathima Akthar Court, 4^th floor,

   453 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.                                                                             ..  Opposite parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                              : party in person.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                     : M/s. K.S.Narasimhan, Adv.,

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                    :Mr. D.Nagesh Babu, Advocate

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                   : Not appeared.

 

            On perusal of both side records and after having heard the oral arguments the complainant and 1^st opposite party we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to the 1^st opposite party to accept the payment for renewing the policy and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to accept the future complaints in regard to disputes related to premium paid or payable in terms of the policy and non issuance of insurance documents and to pay a sum Rs.50,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a  sum of Rs.2500/- towards litigation expenses.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked and written argument filed. While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, document Ex.B1 was marked.  The 2^nd opposite party filed written version but not filed proof affidavit and also written argument on his side.  Further 3^rd opposite party has not appeared before this commission.

                3. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

Complainant has taken critical insurance policy from the 1^st opposite party during the year 2000. Every year the complainant has renewed the said policy before the due date. Accordingly complainant handed over a cheque dated 20.08.2008 for renewal from the 23.08.2008 to 22.08.2009 through the 2^nd opposite party that is before expiry of the existing policy. The cheque was returned and informed by the 1^st opposite party for the reason that they cannot renew the policy since the complainant age is over 60, quoting definition clause B4 of the policy.  The above definition meant for fresh policy holder and not for the renewal of the policy. Hence complainant approached insurance Ombudsman/3^rd opposite party but they have stated that they are not in a position to entertain this type of complaint with the insurance company.  Hence this complaint is filed.

4. Written version of the 1^stopposite party in brief:-

It is submitted that the insurance is a contract of indemnity and hence a proposal cannot insist or compelled and insurer to enter in to a contract.  Every policy is having only a fixed period of twelve calendar months the period of contract is stipulated and determines.  Hence renewal does not confer any special states.  Refusal a grant of policy to the complainant on the ground of direction of IRDA cannot be terms as deficiency in service.  Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

5. Written version of the 2^nd opposite party in brief:

It is submitted that there is no allegation as against this opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is only a formal party to the proceedings. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

6. The points for consideration are:-

            1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

            3) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

7. Point No.1:-

The BAJAJ ALLIANCE general insurance company limited submitting the terms and conditions of CRITICAL ILLNESS COVER as Ex.B1.  Clause B4 of the definition clause reads as follows “Insured means the persons, or a person within a category, named in the Schedule and the dependents of such named persons provided that an Insured has attained the age of 6 years and is not older than 60 year of age at the commencement of the policy period”.

8. According to the complainant the above definition only attract to the fresh policy holder and not for renewal of the policy.  As per clause E (10) is defined Renewal:- “for the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall oblige the company to offer renewal terms of renew the policy or issue a fresh policy”

Further it is reported in Supreme Court cases in appeal (Civil) No.2296/2000 decided on 02.08.2001 in between Biman Kirshna Bose (vs) United India Insurance Company Limited, Hon’ble Judges V.N.Khara & Shivaraj V.Patal,JJ, observed  a renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy.  When renewed, the policy is extended and renewed policy in the identical terms from a different date of its expiration comes in to force.  In common parlance, by renewal, the old policy is revived and it is sort of a substitution of obligations under the old policy, unless such policy provides otherwise”.

9. Therefore the stand taken by the complainant is not correct.  Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

10. Point Nos.2&3:-

We discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in this complaint. Accordingly point Nos.2&3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 24^th day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1	20.08.2008	cheque	Xerox
Ex.A2	28.08.2008	Email from the 1st op to 2nd op.	Xerox
Ex.A3	09.09.2008	Letter from the 2nd op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A4	06.09.2008	Letter from 1st op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A5	……….	Critical illness Brochure.	Xerox
Ex.A6	06.07.2008	Letter from the complainant to the 1st op	Xerox
Ex.A7	13.10.2008	Reply sent by the 1st op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A8	19.12.2008	Letter from 3rd op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A9	…………….	Insurance Ombudsman Brochure.	Xerox
Ex.A10	……………..	Critical illnesses cover policy for the period 2007-2008.	Xerox

 

List of document filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

Ex.B1

…………..

Terms and conditions of the Bajai Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.

Xerox

 

 

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT