BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 651 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.465 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between
Mr.Voorai Dattathreya S/o late V.Krishna Rao
aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd. Public Sector
Employee, R/o Flat No.502, D.No.2-2-1136/7/1,
Hari Hara Nilaya Apartments, New Nallakunta
Hyderabad-044
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. M/s SBI Life Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Central processing Centre, Kapas Bhavan
Plot No.3A, Sector No.10, CBD, Balapur
Navi Mumbai-614
Rep. by it’s Managing Director
2. M/s SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
United India Towers, 6th Floor
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-029
Rep. by it’s Manager-Institutional Alliances
3. M/s Vignaharta Direct Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd.,
C/o Unicon Insurance Addisons Pvt Ltd.,
H.No.3-6-196/197, Prime Plaza, 3rd Floor
Above KFC Restaurant, Himayatnagar,
Hyderabad-029
Rep. by it’s Area Manager-Life Insurance
Respondent/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.Visweswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent M/s G.Anand Kumar(R1&R2)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The refund of premium whether would carry on it interest for the period it was kept with the respondent-insurance company is the subject matter of the Appeal.
2. The appellant obtained SBI Life Smart Performer Insurance Policy bearing number 44006657907 on 18.12.2010 from the respondent-insurance company. For taking the insurance policy he submitted proposal on the same day i.e., 18.12.2010. The appellant addressed letter dated 21.12.2010 stating that he opted for single payment premium policy whereas the respondent-insurance company issued the insurance policy on yearly payment of premium for 5 years and he sought for correction to the extent in the policy. As there was no response to the letter, the appellant had sent another letter on 16.02.2011 either to make correction in the policy or refund the premium. The appellant handed over the insurance policy to the respondent no.3 on 22.12.20110.
3. The respondent-insurance company through letter dated 20.05.2011 requested the appellant to return the insurance policy. The appellant through his reply dated 24.05.2011 brought to the notice of the respondent-insurance company that the insurance policy was handed over to the respondent no.3 on 22.12.2010. The respondent-insurance company issued cheque for a sum of `5,00,000/- on 25.05.2011.
4. The appellant claimed interest on the amount of `5,00,000/- on the premise that the respondent-insurance company caused inordinate delay in making refund of the amount.
5. The respondent-insurance company contended that it is not bound to cancel the insurance policy and refund the premium as per the terms of the insurance policy and it made refund of the premium treating the claim as a special case.
6. The respondent no.3 was proceeded exparte.
7. The appellant, in support of his claim filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2, the Head-Legal filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 to B6.
8. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the respondent-insurance company refunded the premium and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-insurance company,
9. The complainant has filed appeal contending that the respondents issued five year payment policy whereas the proposal of the appellant was for a single premium policy. The appellant brought the mistake to the notice of the respondents through his letter dated 21.12.2010 by submitting the original policy yet the respondents failed to rectify the mistake.
10. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
11. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant submitted proposal on18.12.2010 to the respondent-insurance company and on the same day the respondent-insurance company issued insurance policy bearing number 44006657907 on 18.12.2010 in favour of the appellant.
12. The appellant through letter dated 21.12.2010 requested the respondent insurance company to make correction in the insurance policy as to single time payment and correct his name as Voorai Dattathreya and thereafter another letter was sent to the respondent insurance company with a request to make corrections as to the terms of the insurance policy in regard to payment of premium and in the alternative to refund the amount. The respondent insurance company in its reply dated 20.5.2011 referred to its decision to cancel the insurance policy and refund the premium as also requested the appellant to return the insurance policy.
13. The appellant immediately addressed letter on 24.5.2011 informing the respondent insurance company that he had already submitted the insurance policy to the respondent no.3 about five months ago and as such the insurance policy was not available with him. The respondent insurance company would contend that the appellant furnished incorrect information in the proposal as regards the occupation and for any discrepancy in filling upon of the columns of the proposal, the appellant has to hold the respondent no.3 responsible thereof and not the respondent insurance company as also that it had decided to cancel the insurance policy and refund the amount as a customer friendly gesture though the terms of the insurance policy would not permit it to do so.
14. General Terms of the insurance policy contains sub-clause, Free-look Period which provides for review of terms and conditions of the insurance policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the insurance policy opted for by the appellant and in case he is not satisfied, he has right to return the insurance policy to the respondent insurance company whereupon the respondent would refund the amount deducting administrative charges and premium allocation charges as also guarantee charges from the premium. The appellant had received the insurance policy on 21.12.2010 and on the same day he addressed letter under Ex.A1 requesting the respondent insurance company for review of the terms of the insurance policy as to payment of the premium.
15. There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant within the Free-look Period sought for review of terms of the insurance policy on 21.12.2010 and thereafter the appellant made correspondence with the respondent insurance company extending his request to refund of the amount as the respondent insurance company failed to respond to the request of the appellant as to make correction of the terms of the insurance policy. The request being made for review of the terms of the insurance policy, the contention of the respondent insurance company that the appellant furnished incorrect information in the proposal as to his occupation does not hold any water and is not maintainable.
16. The respondent insurance company made refund of the premium to the appellant on 25.5.2011 and the appellant made request for review of the terms of the insurance policy on 21.12.2010 and for refund of the premium on 16.2.2011. The appellant contends that there has been inordinate delay of five months in making refund of the premium and as such he lost interest on the amount paid towards premium. Except making bald allegation that there has been no terms or conditions providing for cancellation of the insurance policy, the respondent insurance company failed to substantiate as to how it can retain the amount received towards premium once request was made by the appellant for review of the terms of the insurance policy. As such, it can be held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company in not making prompt refund of the premium to the appellant.
17. The appellant claims interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of `5 lakh paid towards premium to the respondent insurance company from 24.11.2010 till 25.5.2011 and a sum of `40,000/- towards compensation. The respondent insurance company cannot take shelter under the plea of incorrect information stated to have been furnished by the appellant. However, the contention of the respondent insurance company that the policy has been in force covering the risk on the life of the appellant till it was cancelled would find some sort of support from the facts relating to the appellant proceeding for review of the terms. As such the appellant can claim interest on the amount from 21.12.2010 from which date he sought for review of the terms of the insurance policy.
18. The appellant contends that the respondent no.3 is the agent of the appellant whereas the respondents no.1 and 2 submit that the respondent no.3 is the agent of the appellant. The respondent no.3 did not choose to contest claim as to its role in the transaction. The respondent no.3 retained the insurance policy without initiating any action. As such, the respondents’ no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the interest on the amount to the appellant. In the circumstances, this Commission is inclined to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the relief for interest @ 9% per annum from 21.12.2010 till 25.5.2011.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of `5 lakh from 21.12.2010 to 25.5.2011 together with costs of `3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.14.08.2013
కె.ఎం.కె*
