First Appeal No. FA/514 of 2013. Case: Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Tarun Jyoti Banerjee and Ors.. Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. FA/514 of 2013
Party NameBajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Tarun Jyoti Banerjee and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee and Nilratan Bandopadhyay, Advocates and For Respondents: Amalendu Das, Advocate
JudgesDebasis Bhattacharya, Presiding Member and Jagannath Bag, Member
IssueLife Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 - Section 49
Judgement DateJanuary 08, 2015
CourtMadhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Jagannath Bag, Member

  1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 5.3.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in Case No. CC/160/12, whereby the complaint was 'allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000 against OP Nos. 1 and 2 but same is dismissed against OP No. 3 but without cost.'

    The Complainant's case, in brief, was as follows:

    The Complainant, being convinced by OP No. 3 namely, Smt. Soma Dey, purchased an Insurance Policy (No. 106532728) from OP Nos. 1 and 2 on payment of half-yearly premium of Rs. 12,500 in 2008. The Complainant used to hand-over cheques of premium to the said Soma Dey who took all responsibility to deposit premiums of the Insurance Policy. Subsequently, he received a cheque of Rs. 18,438 along with reference letter from the OP Insurance Company and came to know that his policy had been terminated. The Complainant returned the cheque to the OP Insurance Company with the request to regularize the policy but again the said amount was returned with fresh cheque without regularizing the said policy which was tantamount to negligent manner of service on the part of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2. Allegedly the OP No. 3 also failed to discharge her duties of collecting the premium from the Complainant and though OP Nos. 1 and 2 had a duty to remind the Complainant that the premium had fallen due also failed to do their duty. The Complainant filed a case before the learned Forum below with prayer for direction, inter alia 'to revive the Policy No. 0106532728 upon receiving the balance premium'. The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 1 and 2 by filing W.V. asserting that the Complainant was himself responsible for his fault and they had no responsibility for the conduct of the agent and the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed and prayed for.

  2. Learned Forum below after having perused the material on record including the W.V. observed that the agent Mrs. Soma Dey opened the policy after collecting materials from the Complainant and the Complainant being a busy lawyer of Barasat and North 24 Parganas, relied fully upon Smt. Soma Dey being the agent of OP No. 1. Premium cheques were sent on four occasions, but on the 5th occasion, the said agent failed to send the cheque in time for which Complainant's policy was terminated. Learned Forum below also observed that in many cases, the 'corporate concern allure the customers through their agents...

To continue reading

Request your trial