The national consumer dispute redressal commission (NCDRC) has directed Bajaj Allianz life insurance company to cough up an amount of Rs Rs.10,24,659, to a Girgaum based resident, after the company had failed to pay the entire maturity amount of the policy, which was purchased by the complainant.
The commission, held that the claim made by the insurance firm, that the policy papers were allegedly forged by the complainant, was never proved by them and hence the insurance firm is liable to pay the remaining amount of the consumer which was it had withheld.
As per the complaint Ramesh Shah and Sushma Shah had purchased a Unit Linked Plan of Bajaj Allianz (Equity Growth Fund) for which an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid for three consecutive years. As per the promised schedule, at the end of the policy period Shah was entitled to get a guaranteed return of 14 per cent on premium paid. “On maturity of claim on July 21, 2011 complainant was a given letter to firm, for withdrawing of her fund. At that time she had claimed amount as per policy and schedule attached to the policy, which was Rs.25,47,959,” reads the complaint copy.
However the insurance firm, had just returned the amount of premium paid by complainant to her of Rs.15,23,300. The complainant however claimed that as per schedule of the policy she was entitled to get remaining amount of Rs.10,24,659 from the insurance firm.
Meanwhile the insurance firm maintained that the specific schedule of the policy was allegedly forged and that it actually did not bear the signature of its CEO, Sam Ghosh’s, but was allegedly forged. The firm maintained that they had also approached the police and had filed a case against the alleged forged signature.
When the NCDRC had asked the firm to produce the status of the FIR filed, the police claimed that the report from the concerned police station stated that the records had been destroyed and no further information was available with this regard.The commission, thus held that the entire onus to prove the case of the documents being allegedly forged, lied on the insurance firm.
However since the insurance firm has failed to prove its own allegations against the consumer, thus the commission held the firm guilty of providing faulty services towards its consumer.
