Bajaj Allianz penalised Rs 20,000

Chandigarh, October 3
After failing to get any reprieve from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amar Nath Bansal, a resident of Sector 8 filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd for suffering mental agony and deficiency in service.
The commission directed the insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 along with litigation costs of Rs 5,000 to the complainant.
The counsel for complainant Amar Nath Bansal contended that the affidavit along with annexure filed by the opposite parties clearly showed their deliberate intention to mislead the district forum. It was contended that the district forum gave an erroneous finding that the son of the complainant could have got the policy cancelled within 15 days free look period as the case of the complainant was that he paid the premium and the policy was to be issued to him and his son was to only get free insurance cover worth Rs 1 lakh as the age of the complainant crossed 60 years.
However, the complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and their agent came and crossed the name of the son of the complainant on the document. It was stated that the complainant filed the rejoinder and annexed the original photograph of his son and also stated that the signatures were not of his son. It was further stated that the opposite parties deliberately manipulated the documents to mislead the forum.
The counsel for the respondents contended that the policy was issued in the name of Som Nath Bansal and not in the name of Amar Nath Bansal. It was contended that the policy was issued on the basis of proposal form filled and signed by the proposer Som Nath Bansal and he was given 15 days ‘free look period’ to seek cancellation of the policy if the terms of the same were not acceptable to him, but he failed to exercise that option.
It was contended that the policy stood lapsed due to non-payment of the premium, therefore nothing could be paid to the life assured.
The state commission comprising its president Justice Sham Sunder and Member Neena Sandhu observed that it was evident that all these documents were received by the proposer within eight days of filling up of the proposal form and thereafter, if he was not satisfied with the policy then he could have cancelled the said policy within a ‘free look period’ but he did not exercise that option. Therefore, this contention of the complainant that the opposite parties issued the policy wrongly in the name of his son is not sustainable and hence rejected.
The commission further observed that the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer because the above said policy was in the name of his son and as such he did not avail their services is not sustainable because the complainant being a proposer paid the due consideration for purchasing the policy in the name of his son.