ORDER

Learned counsel for both sides were heard at length on various dates with final hearing concluding on 04.06.2024. The challenge is to the order dated 31.01.2019 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. A-17/1103 in which Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The challenge in the appeal before the State Commission was to the order dated 05.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Addl.Mumai Suburban (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents herein was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case have been stated by the State Commission in its order and the same are hereby reproduced for ready reference. The original complainant-Asha Ramesh Shah filed complaint for getting balance amount of her maturity claim of Rs.10,24,659/- from opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation. She has submitted that she had taken Unit Linked Plan of Bajaj Allianz (Equity Growth Fund) from opponent. The policy was bearing No.0024457555 and it was issued for period of five years from 2006 to 2011. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.5 Lakhs. She had paid the premium amount of policy of Rs.5 Lakhs for three consecutive years. She submitted that as per terms of the policy i.e. schedule at the end of the policy period she was entitled to get guaranteed return of 14% p.a. on premium paid or the N.A.V. whichever is higher. On maturity of claim on 21/07/2011 complainant had given letter to opponent for withdrawing of her fund. At that time she had claimed amount as per policy and schedule attached to the policy. She had made claim of Rs.25,47,959/- to the opponent as per schedule of the policy. However, opponent had returned the amount of premium paid by complainant to her of Rs.15,23,300/- only to her. It is the contention of the complainant that as per schedule of the policy she is entitled to get remaining amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent. Hence, she had given notice in that respect to the opponent on 19/01/2012. On refusal by opponent, complainant filed consumer complaint against the opponent claiming above said amount from the opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation.

3. The case of the Petitioner / Insurance Company before the Lower Fora as well as this Commission has been that the policy of complainant was Unit Linked and hence there was no guaranteed return for the said policy. They submitted that Schedule produced by the complainant along with policy is forged and fabricated document and it is not bearing signature of then CEO of opponent by name Mr.Sam Ghosh. They submitted that on the date of maturity they have already given amount to the complainant for which she was entitled to get on the basis of that policy. She is not entitled to get additional amount as she claimed from the opponent.

4. The Petitioner further submitted that policy of complainant is Unit Linked policy. In such kind of policy there is no fixed return on the maturity of the policy. Complainant is entitled to get amount as per market prevailing at that stage. They have already paid the amount to the complainant to which she was entitled.

5. Before the State Commission, the Petitioner has contended that they have already given a report in the Police Station and Police is investigating the matter. The legal heirs of the original complainant on other hand contended that at the time of taking policy, opponent had provided policy of insurance along with Schedule. The Schedule is part and parcel of the insurance policy given to the complainant. As per this Schedule, complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- at the end of five years. It is so mentioned in the Schedule of the Policy. Complainant is claiming that amount accordingly from the opponent. He submitted that when it is the contention of opponent that this Schedul