STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 18.01.2019
Date of final hearing: 25.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 07.08.2023
First Appeal No.118 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Earlier known as Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.), Sector-47, ILD Tower, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana). ...Appellant
Versus
Anita Dahiya w/o Dr. Jagbir Singh Dahiya, resident of House No. 140, Sector 31, Gurgaon (Haryana). …..Respondent
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. S.C. Thatai, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Jagbir Singh Dahiya, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.118 of 2019 is invited by Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. to the legality of order dated 07.12.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Gurgaon (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.456 of 2018.
2. In brief, complainant took insurance policy from opposite party in year 2004; bearing No.000240924 w.e.f. 28.03.2004; having annual premium of Rs.10,000/-. Policy was for 14 years and last premium was to be paid on 28.03.2017. As per terms and conditions of policy; it has matured on 28.03.2018 with maturity amount of Rs.2,54,000/- as on 28.03.2018 payable to complainant. She did not want to take benefit of pension and she does not want that her nominee should get the matured amount after her death and thus she debarred her nominee from getting said amount and requested through her email dated 27.08.2018 and letter dated 04.09.2018 to delete name of her nominee-Shri Jagbir Singh Dahiya. She sent email dated 27.08.2018 to refund matured amount at an early date and OP responded vide email dated 01.09.2018 and asked her to fill maturity form and submit it to concerned branch along with required documents. She submitted an application dated 04.09.2018 and deposited maturity form along with original policy documents and other required documents which was received by OP on 05.09.2018. On basis of email dated 01.09.2018; all documents were submitted at Gurgaon Office, duly accepted by OP. It has been alleged that OP assured her that: matured amount would be transferred in her account within 5-6 days, but it has not been transferred in her account till date. She visited office of OP to get her matured amount with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 28.03.2018 till final payment but in vain. On the aforesaid allegations, She filed complaint for issuing directions to OP to refund matured amount of Rs.2,54,000/- with interest @18% w.e.f. 28.03.2018 till final payment; also sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Upon notice, appellant/OP raised contest. In defence; it is pleaded that: allegations made in complaint are false and frivolous and complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. Opposite Party has admitted for obtaining ‘Flexi Secure Life Retirement Plan’ by complainant and has also admitted that policy No.000240924 was issued w.e.f. 28.03.2004. Mode of payment of Premium of Rs.10,000/- was annual and in said policy; her husband Mr. Jagbir Singh Dahiya was the nominee. All terms and conditions of policy were supplied to complainant and thereafter she had signed all documents, and as such, terms and conditions of policy were binding upon her. She signed declaration which reads as under:-
“I have received a copy of this illustration and the product brochure and understand that the amounts indicated under column “Total including additional Fund” in this illustration fluctuates with the actual performance of the Investment Fund supporting the policy and could be higher or lower than illustrated. I understand that these “Total including additional Fund” should be treated as hypothetical only and neither as an estimate nor a guarantee of future policy performance. I also understand that the amounts indicated under the Columns “Total including additional Fund” and “Guaranteed policy Fund” are illustrated ignoring any current or future tax laws that could impact these figures.”
It is pleaded that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel” (2010) 1 SCC 83; has held that when the signature has been affixed on the document then there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. As per terms and conditions of policy; its period was 14 years and OP has mentioned the refund surrender charges etc. in the table form. As per terms and conditions of policy at vesting; maximum of one-third of Policy Fund can be withdrawn and remaining amount was liable to be converted into an annuity and can be used to purchase an annuity offered by the OP- Birla Sun Life Insurance Company. It is pleaded that: basic nature of policy is a Pension Plan and no life coverage was provided in this plan; entire fund value could not be given to the policy holders in Pension Policies because it would change entire nature of plan. Complainant, instead of using fund value for purchase of annuity for regular pensions; has filed present complaint to recover entire fund value with interest which is not maintainable because complainant purchased policy so as to get a Regular Pension and as such complaint was liable to be dismissed. OP has denied the refund of Rs.2,54,000/- along with interest and compensation & litigation expenses on the ground that complainant was not entitled to receive the same. It is pleaded that in view of the ratio laid down by Supreme Court of India in case titled Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 567, the contract of insurance, rights and obligations were strictly governed by the terms of the policy and no exception of relaxation can be given on the ground of equity and terms and conditions of insurance contract were binding upon parties and there was no exception. Reliance has also been placed upon in Revision Petition No.211 of 2009 titled as Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Vs. Madhavacharya decided on 02.02.2010 by the Hon’ble National Commission and in case titled General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain 1966 AIR (SC) 1644. It is pleaded that complainant did not opt for Pension Plan on maturity of policy as per terms and conditions of policy, but even then, OP has got no objection to refund 1/3rd of fund value and to invest 2/3rd of fund value for purchasing annuity for regular pension in terms of policy. Opposite Party has no objection to delete the name of nominee. Inter alia, on these pleas, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. Parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
5. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon vide order dated 07.12.2018 has allowed the complaint, thereby directing OP/appellant herein to refund maturity amount of Rs.2,54,000/- to complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.
6. Feeling aggrieved; OP/appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer has urged that impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon is legally not sustainable. The entire matured amount, in relation to policy in question, cannot be released to complainant. She is only entitled to receive only 1/3rd of the matured amount as per specific case set up by appellant. 2/3rd of matured amount has to be used by complainant for purchasing annuity for the purpose of giving regular pension to policy holder. It is urged that basic nature of policy is the pension plan. Complainant was informed vide letter dated 06.07.2018 that her policy has matured and she should exercise her option available under policy, however, she has not disclose this fact in her complaint. It is further urged that learned District Consumer Commission has not noticed the settled legal position through various judgments and ratio of law laid therein, which is applicable to this case, has already been pleaded in written version. Complainant was well aware of terms and conditions of policy and despite that she did not exercise her option on maturity of policy. On these submissions; learned counsel for appellant/insurer has urged for acceptance of appeal.
8. Refuting the contentions; learned counsel for respondent/complainant has contended that impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is legally justified on given facts and evidence and same does not warrant any interference in this appeal.
9. This Commission has critically and subjectively analyzed rival submissions put before it. It is admitted that complainant obtained policy bearing No. 000240924 on 28.03.2004 in name and style ‘Flexi Secured Life Retirement Plan’. Mode of premium was annual to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Policy was for 14 years period and last premium was to be paid on 28.03.2017. Admittedly, policy stood matured on 28.03.2018 and matured amount was Rs.2,54,000/-. The principal argument put forward by learned counsel for OP/appellant is that: complainant can only withdraw 1/3rd amount from matured policy fund, so accumulated on vesting date i.e. 28.03.2018 and remaining 2/3rd matured amount of policy fund has to be utilized for purchasing annuity, for regular pension. This contention of appellant/insurer has no formidable base at all. Reason is obvious. It is admitted stance of appellant in its written version that complainant did not opt for pension plan on maturity of policy. If complainant has not opted for pension plan on maturity of policy, then any such pension plan cannot be forcibly foisted upon her. OP/appellant cannot be allowed to foreclose the monetary benefits (Rs.2,54,000/-) so accrued to complainant on maturity of policy after completion of its tenure of 14 years merely on the ground that she did not exercise her option on maturity date in furtherance to letter dated 06.07.2018 sent to her. It is specific case set up by complainant that OP/insurer had asked her to fill maturity form and she submitted the same in the Branch Office stationed at Gurgaon along with documents, which were duly received by OP/insurer on 05.09.2018. There is no denial to this fact by OP/appellant in its written version. Once, OP/insurer/appellant had received the maturity form with documents then, there arises no occasion at all for it to plead that complainant has not exercised her option in furtherance to letter dated 06.07.2018 sent to her. Receipt of documents along with maturity form by OP/appellant/insurer would legally imply that complainant has, in fact, exercised her option to obtain maturity amount of Rs.2,54,000/-.
10. Admittedly, policy held by complainant had currency of 14 years and this period has elapsed on 28.03.2018 and on that day maturity amount was Rs.2,54,000/-. This amount belongs to complainant and direction to OP has been rightly issued to refund the same with interest. There is absolutely no illegality or perversity or manifest factual error, in impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon. It is accordingly affirmed and maintained. This appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
11. Along with this appeal; an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has been filed for seeking permission to place on record letter dated 06.07.2018. It is mentioned in the application that this letter was sent to the complainant, through which, she was informed that her policy has matured and she should exercise her option available under policy. Application is supported by affidavit. This application has no credence. Reasons are obvious. Firstly, appellant/insurer should have placed on record this letter dated 06.07.2018 in the proceedings of learned District Consumer Commission which they did not. Secondly, the documents already available on record would suffice the decision of this appeal. Thirdly, in any case, relevancy of this letter dated 06.07.2018 has already been discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order/judgment. Consequently, this application is also dismissed along with main appeal. Any other application if pending, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 07th August, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
