Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/495/2014

Kanta Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/495/2014
Date of Institution	:	23/07/2014
Date of Decision	:	11/02/2015

 

Kanta Sharma, H.No.233, Sector 21-A, F.F. Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No.149 to 160, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through Insurance Broker.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Ltd., One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, 15 & 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compounder 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013 through Chief Operating Officer.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                                               

                       

ARGUED BY:	Ms. Ashu Chojar, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. S.K. Sharma, Proxy counsel for Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs.

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Ms. Kanta Sharma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Birla Sun Life Insurance Ltd., Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that she paid two installments of Rs.60000/- each (?) to the OP Insurance Company. The first installment of Rs.30,000/- was paid in November 2011 and the second was paid in November 2012. Due to unavoidable circumstances, she could not make the payment.  According to the complainant, four years have been completed and she requested the OP company time and again to pay her after deducting reasonable penalty. However, when she visited the Chandigarh office of the OPs she was told that she will not get anything.  It has been contended by the complainant that the OP company used her retirement money of Rs.60,000/- for four years. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         In their reply, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as disputed questions of facts are involved. It has been pleaded that the complainant, who is mother of the life assured, Sh. Bharat Sharma had submitted a proposal/application dated 27.11.2010 (Ex.R-2) to the OPs for the purchase of BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan which was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy No.004530178 dated 30.11.2010 was issued. It has been averred that the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- i.e. two premiums of Rs.30,000/- each in the year 2010 & 2011 but she did not pay the premium for the subsequent years.  It has been contended that the policy opted by the complainant was a traditional policy, therefore, the surrender value of the policy is nil and as such no amount can be refunded to her.  It has been pleaded that the policy documents delivered to the LA (life assured) provided her a period of 15 days within which she could have returned the policy and the act and conduct of the complainant in not returning/surrendering the policy within the given time signified her acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said policy documents. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In her replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own. It has been averred that the proposal/application form was only signed by the complainant and the contents of the same were not read over by her as she had signed the same in good faith. It has been further averred that no terms and conditions were ever informed to the complainant.  It has been pleaded that the executives of the OPs had only informed that the policy was an investment plan and the benefit of the complainant would depend upon the share market.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         It is the admitted case of the OPs that the complainant, Smt. Kanta Sharma, the mother of the life assured Sh. Bharat Sharma, had submitted a proposal/ application dated 27.11.2010 (Ex.R-2) for the purchase of BSLI Bachat Endowment Plan.  The OPs covered the risk of life of the life assured to the extent of Rs.4,63,860/-. According to the OPs, the policy opted by the complainant was a traditional policy. The copy of the proposal form (Ex.R-2) shows that the same bears the signatures of Sh. Bharat Sharma, life to be assured and Smt. Kanta Sharma, complainant (proposer). The contention of the complainant in the replication that the executive of the OPs had only informed that the policy is an investment plan and the benefit to the complainant would depend upon the share market and that the contents of the application were not read over to her and she had signed the same in good faith cannot be accepted. Though the complainant signed the proposal form on 27.11.2010, yet she did not raise any objection till the filing of the complaint on 23.7.2014 that she was told that her money shall be invested in the share market and that the contents of the application form were not read over to her and she had signed the same in good faith. In M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel-2010 (1) SCC 83, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a document is signed by a party, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood.  In the instant case also, since the proposal form (Ex.R-2) is duly signed by the complainant and the life assured, there is a presumption that they had read the document properly and understood it because there is no proof of fraud.
7.         Secondly, the contention of the complainant in the complaint that the first installment of Rs.30,000/- was paid in November 2011 and second installment was paid in November 2012 is also incorrect. The complainant has herself (at page 6 of the paper book) produced a copy of the receipt of renewal premium dated 17.11.2011 whereby she paid an amount of Rs.29,700.40 to the OPs.  The OPs have produced copy of the receipt of first premium as Ex.R-3 which shows that the first premium of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 27.11.2010.  Thus, the documentary evidence on record shows that the first installment of Rs.30,000/- was paid in November 2010 and second installment of Rs.29,700.40 was paid by the complainant in November 2011 and not in November 2012. 
8.         Thirdly, it is not the case of the complainant in the complaint that she had not received the policy document and the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is only at the time of filing of the replication that the complainant alleged that no terms and conditions were ever informed to her.  However, in the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant, she has herself drawn our attention to the terms and conditions (at page 6 of 16) of the policy brochure which goes to show that the complainant had received the insurance policy and the policy brochure containing the terms and conditions.  The non-production of the copy of the insurance policy and the terms and conditions of the policy by the complainant raises an adverse inference against her.
9.         Fourthly, it is the specific averment of the OPs in para 8 of the preliminary objections of the written statement that the complainant could have returned the policy to the OPs within a period of 15 days of receipt of the policy documents.  The complainant has not raised any such issue that she made a request for cancellation of the policy during the free look period of 15 days.  On the other hand, it is evident that she made the payment of second installment of premium on 17.11.2011 which goes to show that she accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the OPs, the policy has lapsed due to non-payment of the premium for the subsequent year within the stipulated period and at present surrender value of the policy is nil.  Admittedly, the complainant has not made the payment of the third installment in November 2012.  Even as per the written arguments of the complainant, as per the terms and conditions in the policy brochure (at page 6 of 16) it is clearly mentioned that “until 3 full year installment premiums are paid : If we do not receive the entire installment premium by the end of the grace period, this policy will be deemed lapsed and all the benefits will cease immediately.”  Thus, since the premium due in November 2012 was not paid by the complainant, even by the end of grace period, the policy in favour of the complainant would be deemed to have been lapsed. The complainant has not produced any such terms and conditions which could show that she is entitled to refund of the amount paid. 
10.         The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Kamaljit Kaur Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.-II (2013) CPJ 36B (CN)(UT) and Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Reena Singh & Anr.-I(2015) CPJ 214 (NC) and has urged that the complainant is only demanding/claiming the amount of money which she has already paid to the OPs and she is entitled to get the same.  However, we are not impressed with the above arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. The ruling Kamaljit Kaur (supra) is just a short note, without any detailed facts of the case. The terms and conditions of the policy are also not mentioned therein.  Therefore, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.  Similarly, in the ruling Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) as the policy lapsed, the complainant was entitled to get only the paid up value of the policy as per rules and not the full deposited amount. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to produce any such document which could show that she is entitled to get paid up value of the policy as per rules.  On the other hand, since the policy in favour of the complainant has lapsed and surrender value is nil, she is not entitled to the refund of the amount. In this context, attention can be had to Gurbaj Singh & Anr. Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors.-First Appeal No.1159 of 2011 decided on 20.1.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab wherein, relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, it was held that there was insurance cover with the complainant during the insurance period, therefore, the premium cannot be ordered to be refunded. 
11.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant has miserably failed to prove that she is entitled to the refund of the amount as per terms and conditions of the policy. Consequently, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11.02.2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President