Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/537/2017

Harbhajan Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Managing Director, M/s SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldip S. Chaudhary

28 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/537/2017
Date of Institution	:	21/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	28/05/2019

 

1.     Harbhajan Kaur widow of late Jaswant Singh;

2.     Jagmohan Singh;

3.     Jagsohan Singh;

4.     Jaspal Singh;

5.     Gurpreet Singh since deceased being unmarried through her mother Smt. Harbhajan Kaur; all sons of late Jaswant Singh, residents of H.No.1094, DMC, Sector 38W, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Chief Managing Director, M/s SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office : Natraj, M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069;

2.     Regional Director, M/s SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-110, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

3.     Mrs. Charanpreet Kaur (CIF Code 990197054), earlier posted at State Bank of Patiala (now State Bank of India), Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

4.     State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of Patiala), Sector 22B Branch, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kuldip Singh Chaudhary, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	Sh. K.S. Arya, Counsel for OPs 3 & 4.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Briefly stated, the allegations are, complainants happens to be illiterate. Deceased husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 5 had share in booth No.12, Shastri Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh.  A civil suit was going on inter se complainants and their uncle Sh. Sukhwinder Singh in which compromise was struck and the complainants had received their share to the extent of Rs.38 lacs.  Rs.30 lacs was deposited with State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22B, Chandigarh (OP-4) and OP-3 had obtained thumb impression of complainants No.1 & 2 on some documents and issued policies No.55007403408 in the name of Harbhajan Kaur; No.1NO53634001 in the name of Jagmohan Singh; No.1NO55532708 in the name of Jaspal Singh; No.1NO53986810 in the name of Jagsohan Singh and 1NYA043605 in the name of Gurpreet Singh.  The complainants had no source of income except the share which they had received.  On coming to know that the policies were issued, complainants asked for their cancellation, but, the same were not cancelled except for deceased complainant No.5, who had died and the amount was refunded through cheque dated 11.7.2016.  It is case of the complainants that fraud was committed by OP-3 as such there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.3,33,928/- paid by the complainants alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint.  OPs 1 & 2 filed their joint reply and claimed, proposal of deceased complainant No.5 was not accepted and the amount was refunded through cheque which was not encashed.  As per terms and conditions, policies were issued on proposal made and no pressure was employed by OPs 1 & 2.  They had no concern with OPs 3 & 4 and even the complainants did not exercise the option of cancellation in free look period of 15 days in the year 2016. The complainants had not paid the subsequent premiums due under the policies and complainant No.1 had the one time investment and the policies are lying in the state of being lapsed.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OPs 3 & 4 have also filed joint written statement and their claim is OPs 1 & 2 are functioning independently with which OPs 3 & 4 had no concern. Even in the free look period, the policies were not cancelled. The proposal for the transfer of the amount was signed by the complainants.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 3 & 4.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          A perusal of the record i.e. the pleadings of the parties shows, complainants had levelled no allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2 i.e. M/s SBI Life Insurance Company Limited while the policies were issued by OPs 1 & 2.  OPs 3 & 4 are the bankers of the complainants and their case is, on the request of the complainants, the said amount was transferred for the purchase of the policies which were issued by OPs 1 & 2.
7.         OPs 1 & 2 were concerned with the premium and perusal of the record i.e. Annexure A-1 and others shows, the policies were issued in June/July 2016 and in the policies there was a free look option vide which the complainants were at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days and even they had the option to return the policies.  The said option was not exercised by the complainants say in the year 2016 and they had preferred the present consumer complaint on 21.7.2017 i.e. nearly after one year from the date of receipt of the policies by them.  Now they have created estoppel against this and they cannot be permitted to retract from the terms and conditions of the policies as they had the option to cancel the same within 15 days. Moreover, there are no allegations of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2.
8.         OPs 3 & 4 are the bankers and they have produced on record photocopies of the debit slips Annexure OP-3 which shows, these were signed by the complainants to take the amount of Rs.33,482/-, Rs.33,270/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.33,630/- from their account and these were signed by complainants No.1  & 2 vide which they had authorised the bank to get the amount transferred for the purchase of the policies in favour of OPs 1 & 2.  It is not the case of the complainants that they did not append the signatures on debit forms referred above. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/05/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President