Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/25/2020

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Col. Yogesh K. Sharma (Retd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Vandanaa Malhotra & Rajneesh Malhotra Adv.

10 Feb 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	25 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	30.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	10.02.2021

 

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-110, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh – 160017 through its Manager.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party.

VERSUS

Col. Yogesh K. Sharma (Retd.) S/o Dr. M. L. Sharma, aged 67 years resident of House No.452/1, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. 

…..Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PRESENT: (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING):

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

Col. Yogesh K. Sharma (Retd.), respondent in person.

 

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                   In this appeal, challenge has been laid to order dated 11.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh) (for short ‘District Commission’) vide which, complaint bearing No.372 of 2019 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed, in the following manner:-

“14.        For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

1. To refund the less amount of Rs.1,69,052/- (Rs.4,83,500/- minus Rs.3,14,448/-) to the Complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policy i.e. 07.05.2017, till it is paid. 

2. To pay Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

15.        This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of maturity of the Policy i.e. 07.05.2017 till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.”

2.                The facts in brief are that the complainant was issued a Policy bearing No.35022563601 with insurance cover of Rs.2,64,000/-, after opting for a single premium payment mode, for which, he deposited Rs.2,50,000/- for a term of 5 years. As per him, the maturity amount promised was Rs.4,83,500/-, however, he was offered an amount of Rs.3,17,625/- on maturity of the said policy. When resisted, the Opposite Party without his consent and documentation, credited an amount of Rs.3,14,448/- in his bank account, which as per the complainant, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Contesting the claim of the complainant, the Opposite Party denied that Rs.4,83,500/- was offered as maturity value under the policy. It was pleaded that the Policy, in question, matured on 07.05.2017 and on its maturity, Rs.3,14,448/- was paid as maturity amount to the complainant as per the terms & conditions of the policy. Thus, the opposite party pleaded no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. In his rejoinder, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the reply of the Opposite Party.

3.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

4.                Now this appeal has been filed impugning order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the District Commission as narrated above.

5.                Counsel for the appellant has argued that Rs.4,83,500/- as maturity value was never offered to the respondent/complainant under the policy. He specifically denied that personnel of the appellant/opposite party had a printed sheet, which tabulated maturity amount and the maturity amount was mentioned therein.  He has further argued that the respondent/complainant has not produced any documentary proof in support of his allegations and the policy document is the evidence of contract and the appellant/opposite party has not assured any benefit other than what is mentioned in the policy document. He has also argued that the maturity value of Rs.3,14,448/- was credited into the bank account of the respondent/complainant after calculating the same as per policy terms and conditions. In para 6 of the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the complaint filed was barred by res judicata as the complaint filed by the complainant before Ombudsman, Chandigarh had already been dismissed on merits.  It has further been stated that in accordance with IRDAI regulations, in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the policy document, he/she has the option to return the policy under Free Look Cancellation, which the respondent/complainant never did. Lastly, it has been submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.  

6.                On the other hand, the respondent/complainant has argued that as per document, Annexure C-2, the maturity amount was clearly Rs.4,83,500/- and by crediting only an amount of Rs.3,14,448/- i.e. Rs.1,69,052/- less, there was grave deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. He further argued that once the assured maturity has been specified, the calculation of Rs.3,14,448/- has been rendered redundant. He further argued that the appellant/opposite party arbitrarily credited the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,14,448/- in his bank account. He prayed for outright dismissal of the appeal on the basis of document, Annexure C-2, which clearly mentioned the maturity value of the policy, in question, as Rs.4,83,500/-. It was argued that the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be upheld and the appeal be dismissed with costs.

7.                We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent in  person and have also gone through their written arguments and material available on record.

8.                So far as the objection of the appellant that the complaint filed was barred by res judicata as the complaint filed by the complainant before Ombudsman, Chandigarh had already been dismissed on merits, is concerned, it may be stated here that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The District Commission has rightly rejected this objection on the basis of letter dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure C-12) of Insurance Ombudsman vide which, the award was conveyed to the respondent/complainant, wherein, the Insurance Ombudsman granted liberty to the respondent/complainant to approach any other Forum/Court if he disagreed with the award passed, by moving a fresh application against the Insurance Company for its alleged deficiency in service.

9.                As regards the objection raised before the District Commission that the complaint filed was barred by limitation, the District Commission, in our considered opinion, rightly rejected this objection by holding that since the maturity amount was paid to the Complainant on 09.05.2017, against, which the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh in July 2017 and award was passed in 2019, therefore, the complaint filed before it (District Commission) was within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.               So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the only grievance of the respondent/complainant was that he was paid Rs.3,14,448/-, after deducting TDS @1% of Rs.3,177/-, as against the promised maturity amount of Rs.4,83,500/-, which was rightly settled by the District Commission in favour of the respondent/complainant by directing the appellant/ opposite party to pay the less amount of Rs.1,69,052/-. To settle this controversy, the District Commission relied upon Policy Information, Annexure C-2, placed on record by the respondent/complainant. Bare perusal of this document clearly revealed that the respondent/complainant purchased Policy No.35022563601 i.e. ‘SBI Life – Shubh Nivesh Endownment Plan’ with commencement dated 07.05.2012 for a premium term of 5 years. The Installment Premium was Rs.2,49,137/- and the sum assured under the said policy was Rs.2,64,000/-. This document clearly proved the case of the respondent/complainant as the maturity amount shown in this document was mentioned as Rs.4,83,500/-. The respondent/ complainant, in his rejoinder filed before the District Commission, specifically stated that  he was provided with a system generated (signed and stamped document (Annexure C-2), wherein the maturity amount was mentioned as Rs.4,83,500/-. The argument of the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that this document was never issued by the appellant/opposite party seemed to be an afterthought to defeat the rightful claim of the respondent/complainant and the same cannot be accepted. Further, this document bears the seal of the appellant/opposite party, duly signed by one its official. Further, the execution time as mentioned on top right of this document, Annexure C-2, is ‘21.06.2012 at 12:40:45 PM’, which undoubtedly proved that this document was executed by the appellant/opposite party and was provided to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, the appellant/ opposite party could not pay less maturity value as against its own document, Annexure C-2, wherein it promised to pay an amount of Rs.4,83,500/- as maturity value. The appellant/opposite party firstly promised something else vide Annexure C-2 and subsequently, took a somersault by not adhering to the aforesaid document vide which, it promised to pay the maturity value of Rs.4,83,500/- to the respondent/complainant. In our considered view, on the strength of aforesaid document, Annexure C-2, the District Commission rightly held that the act of the appellant/opposite party for illegally and arbitrarily deducting the payable maturity amount with its own formula amounted to deficiency in rendering proper services to the respondent/complainant and indulgent into unfair trade practice on its part.  The District Commission, therefore, rightly allowed the complaint by directing the appellant/opposite party to refund the less amount of Rs.1,69,052/- to the respondent/Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policy i.e. 07.05.2017 till it is paid besides payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

11.               Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.    

12.               Further, the appellant/opposite party i.e. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited is directed to refrain from mis-selling its products by alluring the gullible customers at the time of booking business of insurance.

13.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party is dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed by District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.372 of 2019 is upheld.

14.               Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

10.02.2021.

Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad