AHMEDABAD - Gbic.co.in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(19)Order no BPL/LI/04-09/64CASE No. BA/92-20/06-09/PuneSmt. Jahan Ara Khan ………………………………………….. ComplainantBajaj allianz life Ins.Co.ltd.…………………………………...…….RespondentBrief Background MISCELLANEOUSSmt. Jahan Ara khan, resident of Bhopal, M.P. complained that she haspurchased a policy no. 0006812618 under Unit Gain Plan on 27.01.2005and paid Rs. 1.00 lakh towards annual premium. Again she paid Rs. 1.00lakh on 16.01.2006 and Rs. 1.00 lakh on 20.02.2007 towards renewalpremium through Standard Chartered Bank. Out of which the 2 ndpremium paid on 16.01.2006 was accepted as top up premium andunitized the same. Hence, the policy was lapsed, which came to know tothe complainant. She wrote to the respondent pointing out their mistakeand requests them to appropriate the amount paid by her on 16.01.2006towards renewal premium. The request was accepted by the respondenton 07.12.2007 and unitized the amount on 07.12.2007 at the prevailingmarket NAV i.e. Rs.37.553.Aggrieved from the action of respondent Complainant has lodged thecomplaint on dt.17-06-09 to the Hon’ble ombudsman seeking direction tothe respondent to rectify their mistake and unitized the amount @ ofRs.20.341 prevailing on 16.01.2006.The complainant present herself and submitted that the amountappropriated by the company @ 37.553 is totally wrong and it should be@ 20.341 as she has paid the premium on 16.01.2006 and the NAV was@ 20.341. The respondent has wrongly adjusted the premium towardstop up premium instead of annual premium which was their mistakes andshe should not suffer the loss for their mistake. She also confirm thatshe has not submitted top up letter duly signed by her and the premiumwas tender at standard chartered bank office.The respondent represented by Mr. Ankur Chawla, Deputy Manager,submitted that as per the letter dated 16.01.2006 the premium wasunitized towards top up premium instead of regular premium andthereafter the renewal premium due on 16.01.2006 was not paid by thecomplainant the policy was in lapsed condition, therefore, 2 nd renewalpremium paid on 20.02.2007 kept in abeyance and informed to thecomplainant. The complainant requested to consider the premium paid on16.01.2006 as renewal premium instead of top up premium. Accordinglythe company has accepted her request on 07.12.2007 and the premiumpaid on 16.01.06 treated as renewal premium; the renewal premium
paid on 20.02.2007 kept in abeyance unitized on 07.12.2007 at theprevailing NAV as on the date.FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:-There is no doubt that she purchased the policy no. 0006812618 underUnit Gain Plan on 27.01.2005 and paid Rs. 1.00 lakh towards annualpremium. Again she paid Rs. 1.00 lakh on 16.01.2006 and Rs. 1.00 lakhon 20.02.2007 towards renewal premium through Standard CharteredBank. The complainant submitted that she neither given a letter for topup premium nor paid subsequently renewal premium due on 16.01.2006.The 2 nd renewal premium also paid on 20.02.2007. However, thecompany has accepted the same as top up premium and unitized thesame on 16.01.2006 towards 100% allocation instead of 98%.Thereafter, the premium paid on 20.02.2007 was kept in abeyance due tonon receipt of Ist renewal payment due on 27.01.2006.Order no BPL/LI/04-09/64CASE No. BA/92-20/06-09/PuneOn receipt of the request of the complainant to treat the top up premiumas 1st renewal premium due on 20.02.2007 unitized @ 35.553 on07.12.2007 i.e. after 09 months. The respondent is directed to unitizedfirst renewal premium paid on 16.1.2006 @ 98% of the premium amt.instead of 100% @ 20.341 and also unitized the premium received on20.02.2007 @ NAV prevailing on 20.02.2007 within 15 days on receipt ofthis order and regularized the account.Dated at BHOPAL, on 26 th of November 2009.
Page 1: AHMEDABADAhmedabad Ombudsman Centre
Page 4: Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCASE NO.
Page 7 and 8: FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:-There is no
Page 9 and 10: Category - MISCELLENEOUSShri Kailas
Page 11 and 12: Category - MISCELLENEOUSShri OP Sri
Page 13: Order No.BPL/LI 09-10/ 57Case No. S
Page 16 and 17: Category - MISCELLANEOUSOrder no BP
Page 24 and 25: Order no BPL/LI/04-09/63CASE No. BA
Page 32 and 33: FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:-There is no
Page 34 and 35: The Respondent represented by Shri
Page 36 and 37: The Respondent represented by Shri
Page 39 and 40: Order No.BPL/LI 09-10/ 84Case No. B
Page 41: Order No.BPL/LI 10-11/ 87Case No. K
Page 44 and 45: Order No.BPL/LI 10-11/ 94Case No. K
Page 47 and 48: Order No.BPL/LI 10-11/ 96Case No. R
Page 49 and 50: FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:-8. There is
Page 51 and 52: Brief Background - Non receipt of P
Page 53 and 54: Order No.BPL/LI 10-11/ 100Case No.
Page 55 and 56: information that the they have sent
Page 57 and 58: CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH OMBUDSMAN CENT
Page 59 and 60: CHANDIGARH OMBUDSMAN CENTRECASE NO.
Page 63 and 64: FINDINGS: The insurer clarified the
Page 67 and 68: FINDINGS & DECISION: The insurer wa
Page 69 and 70: FACTS: The complainant Sh. Navdeep
Page 71 and 72: DELHICase No.LI-165/ICICIPru/09In t
Page 73: Case No.LI-JP/108/08In the matter o
Page 76 and 77:
Case No.LI-185/Furture/09In the mat
Page 78 and 79:
Case No.LI-135/HDFC/09In the matter
Page 81 and 82:
Case No. LI-ICICI Pru/183/09In the
Page 83 and 84:
from her profession she had intenti
Page 85 and 86:
Case No. LI-ICICI Pru/123/09In the
Page 87 and 88:
Case No.LI/HDFC/114/09In the matter
Page 89 and 90:
1. This is a complaint filed by Shr
Page 91 and 92:
5. Copies of the Order to both the
Page 93 and 94:
2. Complainant had proposed for Kot
Page 95 and 96:
5. Secondly, I find that at this st
Page 97 and 98:
1. Shri Sachin Kumar has made a com
Page 99 and 100:
2. The main complaint seems to be t
Page 102 and 103:
Case No.LI-ICICI Pru/187/09In the m
Page 104 and 105:
Case No.LI-DL-II/96/09In the matter
Page 106 and 107:
2. The respondent company though ho
Page 108 and 109:
policy as mentioned on the face of
Page 110 and 111:
5. The question for consideration i
Page 112 and 113:
After hearing the parties to the di
Page 114 and 115:
Facts and Submissions:-This is a pe
Page 116 and 117:
OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN,
Page 118 and 119:
INSURER:The insurer has not submitt
Page 120 and 121:
Hence, the insurer is directed to s
Page 122 and 123:
any loss or put to any disadvantage
Page 124 and 125:
The Company was asked to provide th
Page 126 and 127:
MUMBAI OMBUDSMAN CENTREComplaint No
Page 128 and 129:
cash and the rest was to be convert
Page 130 and 131:
coronary arteries and the branches
Page 132 and 133:
MUMBAI OMBUDSMAN CENTREComplaint No
Page 134 and 135:
MUMBAIMUMBAI OMBUDSMAN OFFICECompla
Page 136 and 137:
y the company vide their letter dat
Page 138 and 139:
The Company has also not denied the
Page 140 and 141:
fair nor reasonable. It would be fa
Page 142 and 143:
Jayshree Bipin Shah for the sum ass
Page 144 and 145:
Respondent : Life Insurance Corpora
Page 146:
2(B) The benefit of the policy sche
show all

AHMEDABAD - Gbic.co.in

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?