Haryana

StateCommission

A/116/2016

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI NARAIN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      116 of 2016

Date of Institution:      05.02.2016

Date of Decision :       13.01.2017

1.     Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makhwana Road, Off Andheri Kurla Road, near Marol Naka, Andheri (East) Mumbai-59, through Ms.Aakriti Manocha, Assistant Manager-legal.

2.     Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Sector 25, HUDA G.T. Road, Panipat, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jai Narain Gupta s/o Sh. Jagan Nath Gupta, Resident of House No.1340/13, Gaushala Mandi, Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sawan Choudhary, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

           This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated December 3^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Jai Narain Gupta-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed directing the appellants-opposite parties as under:-

“….We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the announcement of this order.”    

2.                Jai Nairain Gupta-complainant/respondent filed complaint averring that he was approached by agent of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants for taking Birla Sun Life Insurance Saral Jeevan Policy and allured of the vast benefits assuring at least 20% yield per year on the said investment. The complainant invested Rs.3.00 lacs and he was issued policy No.001716431 dated 12^th June, 2008.

3.                In the month of April, 2009 the truck of the complainant met with an accident and was damaged. As a result of the accident, the complainant went into shock and was under treatment for a considerable long time. He approached the Insurance Company for refund of the amount deposited by him. The Insurance Company did not pay the amount. The complainant got a legal notice dated 4^th March, 2014 (Exhibit C-3) served through counsel but to no effect. Hence complaint was filed before the District Forum.

4.                The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia stating that the complainant was not a consumer and that the complainant made a concocted story of 20% assured return on the investment. It was submitted that the complainant was issued a policy with 15 days Free Look Period. It was denied that the complainant was assured of any return on the investment. It was stated that the complainant could seek the cancellation of policy within 15 calendar days and on receipt of the said request, the complainant was entitled to Policy Fund Value plus all charges levied till date excluding the Fund Management Charges.  Thus, denying the allegations dismissal of the complaint was sought.

5.                District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the documents/evidence on the record allowed the complaint granting relief as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant invested Rs.3.00 lacs under Saral Jeevan-Fund Coverage with Saral Jeevan Life Coverage-Term 20 Pay Reg. The policy provides for Surrender as under:-

“You may surrender this policy to us at any time for its Surrender Value. This contract, including all coverages, will terminate on the date you surrender your policy and you will not be able to revive your policy thereafter.

During the first three policy years, the Surrender Value is the Policy Fund Value net of Surrender Charges. Should you decide to surrender your policy during the first three policy years, we will not pay the Surrender Value Immediately but instead pay it to you at the end of the third policy year. The Surrender Value as of the date of your surrender request will not vary based on the performance of the Investment Funds and will remain constant till the time it is paid to you.

After the first three policy years, the Surrender Value is the Policy Fund Value. Should you decide to surrender your policy after three completed policy years, we will pay you the Surrender Value immediately upon your request.”

8.                The complainant has specifically stated that he sought refund of his amount but the Insurance Company did not pay the amount. Reminder (Exhibit C/2) was given by the complainant to the Insurance Company. The opposite parties after filing the reply did not appear and proceeded exparte. There is no rebuttal to the evidence of the complainant. So, since the policy contained clause for surrender, therefore, the opposite parties should have treated the request for refund as the request for surrender and paid the Policy Fund Value prevalent on that date.

9.                Though the complainant was not entitled to refund of the entire amount, the District Forum wrongly ordered for the same. However, certainly the complainant is entitled to seek Policy Surrender Value. In view of this, the Insurance Company-opposite parties shall treat complainant’s request for refund as request for surrender and pay the benefits as permissible under Surrender Value of the Policy. It is ordered accordingly.

10.              With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed of.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 13.01.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL