Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SANTHAMMA THOMAS, MEMBER
Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sabil Moosakutty & Anr. - Respondents
Appeal No. 560 of 2012
Decided on : 20-02-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. Siju Rajan and Mr. N.G. Mahesh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pathirappally S. Krishnakumary, Advocate.
The burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company, and ambiguous language in insurance policies cannot be used against the policyholder.
Headnote:
Insurance - Misrepresentation - Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - 47 years - 28.3.2054 - 28/03/2007, 28.5.2008, 12.5.2009 - Ext. A1, A2, A3, A4, B1
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent deposited Rs.25,000/- each on 18.3.2007, 28.3.2008, and 12.5.2009 with the appellant based on an offer of high dividend and interest. The appellant denied the contentions and claimed the 1st party had taken two policies with a 47-year term and maturity date of 28.3.2054.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to produce convincing documents for their defense and the burden heavily lies on the Insurance Company to prove the allegation. The conditions in the policy were printed in ambiguous language, and the appellant's contentions were deemed irrelevant.
Issues: Misrepresentation of insurance policy, failure to provide clear terms and conditions, bounced cheque
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company. Ambiguous language in insurance policies cannot be used against the policyholder. Irrelevant contentions do not hold weight in the absence of clear evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as having no merits, with litigation cost of Rs.2,500, and the impugned judgment and order of the Learned Forum below was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. Santhamma Thomas, Member-Aggrieved by the order in CC No.254/2010 on the file of District Forum, Kannur, the opposite party “Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.”(hereinafter referred as Appellants) preferred this appeal against order dated 29th day of March, 2012.
2. Brief facts the complainant in Lower Forum Shri Sabil Moosakutty (hereinafter referred to as 1st respondent) contended that as induced by 2nd respondent (Shri Vikas Babu), he deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- each on 18.3.2007, 28.3.2008 and 12.5.2009 with Appellant based on an offer of high dividend and interest over the deposit amount and promised he can withdraw as and when he wishes. Later on approaching the appellant and 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent understood there will be deducting of huge amount as service charge from his deposit and also expressed unwillingness in allowing the 1st respondent withdrawing his amount. 1st respondent after his unsuccessful several attempts in getting his money back from the appellant and 2nd respondent, decided to approach the Lower Forum and with evidence, claimed back deposited amount of 75,000/- along with 12% interest and Rs.10,000/- as travelling expense and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony with dividend.
3. The appellant brought the contention that 1st party had taken two policies by depositing Rs.25,000/- each on 28.3.2008 and 28.3.2010 and product name is Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit gain. The dates of commencement of policies are 28.3.2008 and 28.3.2010 and the term is 47 years and will mature on 28 March, 2054. The appellants denied all contentions raised by the 1st respondent in the Lower Forum.
4. Lower Forum based on the evidence and oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4, concluded that appellant in order to substantiate their versions has not produced any related documents and hence seemed that the 1st respondent have not been instructed and illustrated the details regarding terms and conditions, maturity etc. with respect to the policy. Lower Forum decided that there is deficiency of service on the part of appellant for which they are liable to compensate the 1st respondent. In the result the complaint was allowed partly directing appellant to return Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) to the 1st respondent with 12% interest from the date of receipt i.e. for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from 28.3.2004 for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from 28.5.2008 and for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from 12.5.2009 by opposite party till realization with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
5. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed an application to receive documents as additional evidence which were received and assigned as Exts. B1. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the Learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties, in which the 2ndrespondent remained absent.
6. It is an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent had taken an insurance policy basing on his declaration in the photocopy of proposal form submitted by him under Ext. A1and photocopy of premium receipt dated 28/03/2007 under Ext.A2, renewal premium receipt dated 28.5.2008 under Ext.A3 and policy deposit renewal premium receipt dated 12.5.2009 under Ext. A4. The primary contention raised by the appellant was that 1st respondent had opted for two policies from Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance by name Bajaj Alliance Capital Unit gain with commencement on 28/03/2010 and the term of policy is for 47 years and maturity date is 28.3.2054. Appellants contend that as per conditions of the policy the 1st respondent can submit application for surrender of the policy pri
