Bajaj Allianz Consumer Complaint Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali fined for not giving promised maturity amount.


Rajesh Garg, a resident of Sector 21, approached the commission after the company failed to give him the promised amount after the maturity of the policy.

In the complaint, Garg said he took a single premium policy from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited for Rs1 lakh on April 2, 2010. The policy was to mature on March 28, 2020. On maturity, the complainant was entitled to at least 170 per cent of the unit price payable on March 28, 2020. However, there was neither any response nor credit of the amount by the due date.

The company claimed that the maturity amount was calculated as per the stipulations in the policy and a cheque dated March 31, 2020, for Rs.1,55,460 was prepared, but it could not be delivered to the complainant due to the lockdown. A fresh cheque was dispatched to the complainant, which was received by him on August 13, 2020. The firm denied any deficiency of service.

The complainant said the maturity amount had not been calculated appropriately and the payment of Rs1,55,460 was in contravention of the terms of the policy. According to him, a total of 9865.6675 units were allocated to him on March 31, 2010, and the maturity amount had been calculated by the company as per the number of units at the time of maturity i.e. 7148.3561.

Bajaj Allianz Consumer Complaint Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Bajaj Allianz Consumer Complaint Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

Also Read- Chandigarh Stories – The Tribune, Chandigarh, India


  • After hearing the arguments, the commission noted that the firm had not given any justification or basis for reduction of the number of units from 9865.6675 at the time of allocation till the time of maturity.
  • In view of the facts, the complainant is held entitled to receive Rs2,14,555. Since the complainant has already received Rs1,55,460, the company is liable to pay him the balance amount of Rs59,095.


  • The commission said the act of the firm in not paying the maturity amount in accordance with the minimum amount guaranteed at the time of inception of the policy amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
  • In view of this, the firm is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs59,095 to the complainant. It was also told to pay Rs15,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment and Rs10,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.
  • Not paying the maturity amount of a policy in accordance with the minimum amount guaranteed is deficiency in service. Stating this, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, not only directed an insurance firm to pay the balance amount of Rs59,095 to a consumer, but also directed it to pay a compensation of Rs25,000 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Also Read- Chandigarh forum directs insurance firm to pay Rs 2.09L to woman for rejecting her claim for cancer treatment.

For case specific advice, please contact best top expert Consumer Court Lawyers of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar.

More on 99888-17966.