Punjab

StateCommission

FA/739/2013

Manish Kumar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

in person

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,       PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                   First Appeal No.739 of 2013

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.07.2013

                                                          Order Reserved on : 27.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   28.02.2017

 

Manish Kumar Singla aged about 35 years son of Shri Milkhi Ram Singla son of Shri Babu Ram, resident of House No. 3146, Court Road, Gali No. 1, Bathinda.

 

                                                                   Appellant/Complainant           

         Versus

 

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company  Limited, Registered Office,         One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15th and 16th Floor, Jupiter          Mill Compound 841, Senapati Bapt Marg, Elphinstone Road,     Mumbai through its Manager Director.

2.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch, The Mall,           Bathinda through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                               Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Bathinda.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

Present:-

          For appellant                         : None (By post)

          For respondents                    : Sh.Nitin Thatai, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant directed this appeal against order dated 29.05.2013 of District Forum Bathinda, dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is complainant in the original complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased Single Premium Policy through agent Anurag Singla of OPs having code no. BA-1004. The complainant was assured by him that minimum growth/interest of 15% will be paid on the deposited amount. The complainant paid first installment of 5570/- before 19.09.2006. Remaining installments of Rs.5570/- each, were paid by the complainant on 27.02.2007. No amount was returned to the complainant from the very inception of it. The complainant surrendered the policy on 13.11.2012 and official of OP no.2 obtained the signatures of the complainant on unfilled/blank forms and revenue stamps. The complainant received cheque bearing no. 670861 dated 26.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.52,437.70 in the first week of December 2012 through courier service. The OPs have withheld the amount of the complainant unauthorizedly. The Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) issued letter dated 10.04.2010 amending rules in 2010, which superseded the provisions of circular/guidelines issued by the authority. As per Rule 8 of the IRDA Regulation 2010, the OPs have wrongly withheld the amount of the complainant. Short payment made to the complainant caused harassment to complainant because Regulation 2010 has not been complied with by OPs in this regard. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.14,402/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/-  for mental harassment and any other relief found fit.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant is not consumer because no deficiency in service has been proved against OPs. The complaint is frivolous and merits dismissal. As per Regulation, every policyholder has a right to free look clause of the policy if he/she is dissatisfied with the terms and conditions or the benefits of the policy.  The complainant has not exercised free look period option in this case. The terms and conditions are strictly applicable of the policy on the parties. All the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are set by IRDA constituted under the IRDA Act, 1999 and Insurance Act, 1938. On merits, it was averred by OPs that complainant filled the proposal form-bearing no. A4862717 on 18.09.2006 and he opted to pay Rs.5570/- as premium as Semi Annually with sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/-, benefit period 71 and paying period 15. The complete terms and conditions were sent to the complainant and complainant failed to exercise the free look period clause within stipulated period to come out of the policy. The unit price of any investment fund may increase or decrease as per the performance of the financial markets. Only surrender charges are to be provided to the complainant, which have been rightly provided in this case by OPs. The Regulation 2010 would not be applicable in this case. Any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs was vehemently denied and  it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                   

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19, supplementary affidavit of Manish Kumar Singla Ex.C-18.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Kisalay Kartekey Authorized Signatory Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 29.05.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Bathidna dated 29.05.2013, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and have also examined the record of the case, as appellant has not appeared in this Forum despite sending the notice to him. Appeal was received by post and appellant failed to appear before this Commission and rather wrote a letter to this Commission on 28.07.2013 that appeal be decided on merits after going through the record. We proceed to examine the record of the case. Ex.C-1 is affidavit of the complainant. Ex.C-2 is letter for refund of the amount of Rs.14402/- along with interest of policy no. 00749104 written by the complainant to OPs. Postal receipts are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4. Ex.C-6 is receipt for payment of amount of Rs.5570/- vide receipt no. 2060723 issued by OPs to complainant. Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 are other receipts issued by OPs to complainant for deposit of the installment amount of Rs.5570/-. Renewal premium is Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-17 on the record. Supplementary affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-18. Ex.C-19 is notification issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010. The complainant relied upon the above notification and evidence. To refute this evidence, OPs relied upon affidavit of Kisalay Kartikey Authorized Signatory of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited/OPs Ex.OP-1 in support of pleaded case of the OPs. Ex.OP-2 is proposal form filled in by the complainant. Ex.OP-3 is receipt for deposit of premium of Rs.5570/-. Cash surrender value document is Ex.OP-4 on the record. Policy cancellation (surrender form) is Ex.OP-5 and policy control sheet is Ex.OP-6 on the record.

6.      From evaluation of above-referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we conclude that complainant opted for policy in the year 2007. The complainant has already been paid the surrender charges to OPs as admissible to him under the policy. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have not paid the amount to the complainant, as per notification issued by IRDA 2010. This is applicable to the linked policies also. The complainant wants the refund the amount, which has been wrongly withheld by OPs as per notification of IRDA issued in 2010. The complainant has been paying premium of the policy in this case, as is evident from payment of receipts Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 on the record. OPs have categorically proved it that policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant. The complainant has not exercised the free look period option clause in this case. The case  is strictly governed by terms and conditions of the policy and admissible surrender charges has already been sent to complainant by OPs in this case. The complainant wants the benefit of notification issued by IRDA on 1 July 2010 Ex.C-19 on the record. Section 1 (2) of this notification makes it clear that they shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette and shall apply to all products of linked life insurance cleared by the authority thereafter. This regulation was published in the official gazette on 01.07.2010. This fact has not disputed. As per Section 1(2) of Ex.C-9 notification dated 01.07.2010, It will not be applicable with retrospective effect. The complainant cannot derive any benefit  from this notification, which would not be application from back date in this case. The surrender charges have already been paid by OPs to complainant, as admissible under the policy. The parties are strictly bound by terms and conditions of the policy and they cannot go beyond the same. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in this case and the notification issued by IRDA on 10.07.2010 would not be applicable in this case. The finding of the District Forum are thus, correct that surrender charges, as admissible to the complainant have already been sent by OPs to complainant. We, thus, agree with the findings of the District Forum by finding no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum under challenge in this case.       

7.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

8.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 28,  2017                                                             

(ravi)