BHARTENDU SOOD Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2012-3-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 13,2012

Bhartendu Sood Appellant
VERSUS
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants and directed the opposite party/respondent as under:
"So, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to allow this complaint in favour of the complainant with a direction to the OP to pay the fund value of the policies in questions to the complainants immediately as per value of their investment, taking the NAV rate for today 21.3.2011. This amount be refunded to the complainants along with documentary proof i.e. newspaper cutting to show the NAV value of their units/investments as on 21.3.2011. However, the complainants will submit to the OP all the relevant documents necessary for getting the fund value from the OP.

The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of documents from the complainant, failing which they shall pay the total amount of fund value of both the complainants along with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payments to the complainant."

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that complainant No. 1 and his daughter obtained two Unit Linked Life Insurance Policies namely 'Capital Unit Gain' from the Opposite Party, for an assured sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs each for which a premium of Rs. 25,000 each, was paid by them annually from April, 2007 upto 2009 i.e. for three years. On 28.12.2008, the statement of account received from the Opposite Party in respect of the said policies showed the fund value at Rs. 26,131 against the investment of Rs. 50,000 each. In October, 2009, the statement showed the Fund Value as Rs. 10,683 for Bhartendu Sood, complainant No. 1 andRs. 14,633 for Saubhagya Prada Sood, complainant No. 2. It was stated that after depositing the 3rd premium of both the policies amounting to Rs. 25,000 each on 14.10.2009, the complainant got a statement on 20.10.2009, showing the fund value of Rs. 72,030 for Bhartendu Sood and Rs. 84,403 for Saubhagya Prada Sood. However, on 5.11.2009 when complainant No. 1 visited the office of the Opposite Party, he got a statement showing fund value at Rs. 67,312 for him and Rs. 82,578 for Saubhagya Prada Sood respectively. However, the subsequent statements showed fall in the investment of the complainants. It was further stated that on 5.3.2010, the complainants gave separate notices to the Opposite Party, to explain the fall in the fund value after October, 2009, but the Company did not reply. In a subsequent routine letter received, from the Opposite Party, the fund value was shown as Rs. 44,976 for Bhartendu Sood and Rs. 48,156 for Saubhagya Prada Sood on 11.3.2010. It was further stated that even though the market fluctuation always seemed to show an upward trend, their fund value was only decreasing. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed
(3.)THE Opposite Party, initially put in appearance through Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate. However, subsequently none appeared on its behalf. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex parte.
After hearing complainant No. 1 in person and on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.