Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Vadivambal Varadarajan

R.K. Agrawal, J

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 18-07-2018 passed by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum in CC No.216 of 2014 dated 13-10-2016 has been confirmed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

We have heard Ms. Vidyalakshmi Vipin, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Palaniappan, who represents the Respondent and have perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Insurance Policy was taken with full knowledge by the Petitioners and it was for a period of 36 years. The Insured could have withdrawn from the Policy within 15 days. The Insured had approached the District Forum on 13-11-2014 whereas the Policy was issued on 28-03-2011. She further submitted that till the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant/Respondent herein (the insured) was being given a monthly payment of Rs.6,415/- which she enjoyed and, therefore, there is no question of getting out of the policy in question.

The learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent, however, submitted that the Policy, though taken on 28-04-2011, was given to her after 15 months. While issuing the Policy, the Agent/Deputy Manager who had come to the Complainant/Respondent herein gave a different picture for taking the Policy and had she been told that the Policy is of 36 years, she being aged 69 years at that time, could not have opted for it because normally no one lives for a period of 100 years or more, exceptions may be there. Moreover, the Complainant/Respondent was of 69 years whereas in the Insurance Policy her age was mentioned as 63 years.

Further, in the Policy which was sent to her, the name of the nominee was wrongly mentioned which was corrected only after a period of six months. The Complainant/Respondent was suffering from diabetes and required huge money for frequent medical treatment and purchasing of costly medicines, therefore, she was left with no other option but to get out of the Policy and filed a Complaint.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and find that the District Forum as well as the State Commission were perfectly justified in directing the Petitioners to refund the entire amount along with some costs. The period of 15 days provided for getting out of the Policy will not apply in the present case because the Petitioners themselves had delivered the Policy after a period of 15 months. Secondly, wrong name of the nominee and incorrect age of the Insured was mentioned in the Policy which shows the working of the Petitioners.

We do not want to go into the question regarding the submission of the Complainant/Respondent that the Agent/Deputy Manager have painted a rosy picture about the Policy or have given some wrong information.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that till the date of the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant had been paid a sum of Rs.6,415/- per month pursuant to the said policy and, therefore, the entire amount ought not to have been refunded. We may mention here that the Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,80,844/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four only) in one go on or before 28-04-2011 and at that point of time the Bank rate of interest was 9% or 10% per annum. If we take the Bank rate of interest at 9%, the amount of interest alone for one year would come to about Rs.97,275/- whereas the Petitioners had only paid a sum of Rs.76,980/- during the period of one year. Therefore, the Petitioners have enjoyed the benefit of the deposit and had paid a lesser amount than the Bank rate to the Complainant/Respondent. The Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to any deduction towards the amount paid to the Complainant during the interregnum.

The orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission are well-reasoned orders and based on appreciation of material and evidence placed on record and do not suffer any illegality which may warrant any interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

The amount already deposited by the Petitioners pursuant to the order dated 22-02-2019, along with accrued interest, if any, be given to the Complainant/Respondent herein.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.