DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Jagdish Chand s/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, R/o # H.No.3, Block-B, Indl. Area, Phase-I, U.T. Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1.   Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office: One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 & 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013.

2.   Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 101, 102 & 103, 2^nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh – 160 017.

---- Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Ranjan Lohan, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant is a matriculate and is working as a Foreman with M/s Bhushan Powers and Steel Limited. He has stated that he was persuaded by the representative of the Opposite Parties to purchase a plan namely BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan, for which he paid a sum of Rs.49,997/- as premium. The Complainant has alleged that the agent had represented that the plan was a single premium plan and was like an FDR. The Complainant received Policy No. 005189123 and kept it in safe custody believing it to be a one time investment (Policy Annexure C-1).

          The Complainant was thus surprised to receive a SMS/call in April, 2012 from the Opposite Parties requesting for payment of 2^nd installment of premium of another policy also sold to him by the Opposite Parties i.e. BSLI Vision Policy. The Complainant was shocked to receive this call. He then opened both the policies, but as they were in English language, he showed them to his superior officer. He now learnt that the payment terms of the policies was 20 years commencing w.e.f. 01/11/2011 and the premium was payable annually. The Complainant has stated that he is merely working as a Foreman with a limited salary and cannot afford to pay the heavy premium of the policy over such a long period. He has also alleged that the policy has been sold to him by false representation and assurances and he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the Policy.

          Alleging unfair trade practice the Complainant has filed the instant complaint, with a prayer for refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.    

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Party in reply has denied all the allegations, facts and averments in the complaint. It has been stated that the life assured had submitted a proposal form for purchase of BSLI Vision Plan acceptable on standard rates on the basis of the information provided by the life assured and consequently, policy dated 01.11.2011 was issued to him. The complete details of the policy were well explained to the life assured and features of the plan as well as premiums to be paid besides other charges leviable were also explained. The life assured has signed the proposal form only thereafter. The Opposite Parties have relied on a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, besides other courts to substantiate that the amount claimed by the Complainant is not payable. Opposite Parties have denied that the policy was an investment policy or that single premium was payable. It is submitted that the allegations made by the Complainant are not sustainable as he is an educated person and is Matric pass and the proposal form and declaration was filled and signed by him in English language. 

          On merits, Opposite Parties have taken similar objections as above. It has also been stated that the Complainant has duly received the policy no. 0045189123, but has refrained himself from exercising the option of refund in the free look period of fifteen days. Opposite Parties have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have perused the record.

6.          Ex.R-2 is the proposal form signed by the Complainant. The declaration to this form has been signed by the Complainant as well as the broker. The policy name is BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan and Policy No. is 005189123 It has been mentioned that the paying term of the policy is 20 years and the annual premium is Rs.49,997/-. Opposite Parties while contesting the complaint have not referred to this policy at all. Instead reference is made to a policy BSLI Vision Plan bearing No. 0045189123. Hence whether by default or otherwise the contentions of the Complainant for the policy issued and request for cancellation have gone unrebutted. The annual income of the Complainant has been shown as Rs.3.75 lacs in the proposal. This would mean that the Complainant is earning about Rs.31,250/- per month while the premium payable per month is Rs.4274/-. To our mind, a person with this kind of earning would not be in a position to pay such a heavy premium on regular basis for the next 20 years. The person would have attained the age of almost 70 years by the time the final payment is made. The Complainant has stated that he was given to understand that the amount taken was towards single premium plan and is like an FDR. On receipt of policy, the Complainant has kept it safely in good faith. It is only when he was asked to make payment of the next premium of another policy that he consulted his superior officer, upon which the Complainant learnt that the term of the policy was 20 years and as such, he was required to pay the premium amount every year for 20 years.

7.          Apparently, it is a case of mis-selling of the policy by the representative of the Opposite Parties to an unsuspecting consumer, who is only a matriculate pass and definitely not well versed with the complications or effects of the policy. 

8.          We must also keep in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the consumer and benefit of doubt needs to be given to the unsuspecting consumer faced with expert brokers who may easily mislead. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1) CLT 1 (SC), had held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation.  Further, in case Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(1) CLT 303 (Pb.), it has also been held that if two view are possible, the one which helps the consumer should be taken. Otherwise also, the Opposite Parties have given reply with regard to BSLI Vision Plan bearing No. 0045189123 and not Policy BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan bearing Policy No. is 005189123 regarding which this complaint has been filed. It seems that the Complainant has complained about this policy also. 

9.          Hence relying on the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, and giving the benefit to the consumer, as all his allegations have gone unrebutted, we decide this case in favour of the Complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.49,997/- received from the Complainant after deduction of mandatory statutory charges. This amount be paid within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @6% per annum on the payable amount from the date of receipt of the amount, till it is paid.   No costs.

10.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th March, 2013.                                              

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER