Mumbai 400 021.

         (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran)              

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the full maturity value of  `1, 35,703 with 18% interest per annum from 12.3.2012 to the date of payment with  `75,000 as compensation and `25,000 as cost.

          The complainant’s case is that he has taken SBI life Plus II Pension Policy with single premium as persuaded by the 1^st opposite party and deposited `99,000 on 12.03.2007 for a period of 5 years and issued a SBI Life-Unit plus Pension Unit linked product  non-participating policy having No.28001754107 with maturity period of 5 years and hence the complainant is entitled to get back the full value of  `1,35,703 on maturity . On  12.03.2012 the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with the completed surrender form to get back the  full value of the policy. But opposite party rejected the request of the complainant and ask the complainant to submit annuity option sheet for further deposit. But he has not submitted the annuity option sheet since he is in dare need of money for his daughter’s marriage. But the complainant informed that the maturity amount could not be obtained in full and that he was entitled to withdraw only a maximum of 33%of maturity value as the remaining percentage of the maturity amount vested upon the policy. The opposite party cannot withhold or re-invest any part without the consent of the policy holder. The complainant has not made any option to commute one third of the maturity benefit or purchase annuity with the remaining two third of maturity benefit. The opposite parties are liable to pay full maturity amount to the complainant. Because of this attitude of the opposite party the complainant is undergoing severe hardship so the 1^st opposite party have shown gross deficiency of service on their part and the complainant is entitled to get the matured value of the policy. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

          The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting that he has approached the complainant for taking SBI life Unit plus II Pension Policy and the complainant took a policy by depositing `99000 with a maturity period of 5 years. The policy was issued on the basis of the proposal form duly singed by the policy holder.

According to the terms and conditions of policy under the head benefits payable point No. B “ At maturity” where in life assured attains the vesting age, he will have the option to commute up to one third of the maturity benefit and purchase  an annuity with the remaining two third of the maturity benefit. In proposal form complainant opted the vesting age as 62 years and term of 5 years  and the vesting date was on 12.03.2012.The terms and conditions of the policy do not allow full withdrawal of the policy at  or after vesting date. The 1^st opposite party has clearly explained the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant before issuing the policy. The complainant has put signature in the proposal form after fully convinced about the terms and conditions of policy. Now the opposite party is not working with 1^st  opposite party and now working in a hotel in Ernakulum. So there is no unfair practice on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Opposite party’s 2 to 7 also filed version stating that  during the course of their business, they grant pension policies in which the policy holder’s  contribution  will be accumulate in the personal pension account  and at the time of maturity the policy holder will have the option to choose among the  various pension options available. As per the policy condition the policy holder may withdraw up to 33% of the accumulated sum and use the balance amount to purchase annuity payment benefit from the opposite party. So the policy is purely a pension plan for the individuals. The policy holder has to necessarily take the maturity amount in the form of a pension once the policy vests. The policy holder does not have the option of receiving the maturity amount in lump sum except to the extent of 33% of the accumulated sum. Opposite parties 2 to 7 admits that the complainant is a policy holder having No. 28001754107 with date of commencement as 12.03.2007 for 5 years. The policy was issued on the basis of proposal form duly singed by the policy holder. The complainant himself has admitted that he had applied for unit plus II Pension Plan. The policy holder must have understood the documents and the terms and conditions of policy before signing the proposal. As per the terms and conditions of the policy schedule under the head benefits payable at maturity “ Where the life assured attains the vesting age, he will have the option to commute up to 1/3 of maturity benefit and purchase as annuity with the remaining 2/3  of the maturity benefit. The complaint had received the annuity option sheet sent by opposite parties, but did not fulfill the requirement and requested for full refund of maturity value. The complainant was requested to submit the annuity option sheet, instead he filed the complaint. The pension product enjoys some special benefit and the product features do not provide for the full refund of the accumulated mount after the vesting date. The opposite parties do not have the mandate to violate the product features approved by IRDA and cannot act in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. So there is no cause of action to file this complaint. There is no provision under the policy to withdraw full maturity amount on the completion of vesting age. The policy is basically a pension plan and intended to provide pension every year to the policy holder. Since the basic feature of pension policy is to provide periodical income to the policy holder, there is no provision for lump sum payment of PPA amount. The complainant has the option to withdraw up to maximum 33% of the amount in PPA and with the balance amount the complainant have to purchase any one of the annuity available on vesting date from the opposite party or any other insurer. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 and B1 to B4.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

          The complainant contended that he had deposited `99,600 before opposite party for five years and after five year he is entitled to get the maturity benefit of `135,703. But opposite parties were not ready to disburse the same in spite of repeated request. To prove his case he has produced documents such as premium receipt, original policy, copy of rejection letter, copy of letters issued by opposite parties to complainant, letters sent by complainant to opposite parties, copy of advance receipt issued by Sadhoo Kalyana Mandapam to complainant, original policy of Unit plus pension scheme, deposit transaction enquiry sheet issued by NMGB to complainant etc.  In order to disprove the case opposite party also produced documents such as copy of proposal form and letter issued by complainant to opposite party and reply issued by opposite parity to complainant etc. According to the opposite party as per the policy the complainant has the option to withdraw up to a maximum of 33% of the amount in the PPA and with the balance amount the complainant has to purchase any one of the annuities as available on the vesting date from opposite parties or from other insurer. But as per the policy under the Head Benefits  payable says that “ At maturity, here the life assured attains the vesting age he will have the option to commute up to one third of the maturity benefit and purchase an annuity  with the remaining two third of the maturity benefit in accordance   with prevalent tax laws”. So it is optional on the part of the complainant to withdraw 33% and to purchase annuity using balance. So the opposite party cannot retain the maturity benefit of the complainant as per the policy. More over as per Ext.A12 and A13 it is clear that the opposite party has allowed the complainant to withdraw the full maturity value as per the policy No. 28010168906 having the same product. So the opposite party is liable to realize the entire maturity fund value to the complainant. As per Ext.B3 (a) annuity option sheet the fund value as on 12.03.2012 is shown as `1,35,703.17. So the complainant is entitled to get the same. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant by paying full maturity value of `1,35,703 with 12% interest from the date on which surrender form submitted along with `2000 as cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to  receive the same and passed orders accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to pay `1, 35,703 (Rupees One Lakh Thirty five thousand Seven hundred and three only) the matured value with 12%interest from the date on which surrender from submitted with `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                           Sd/-                     Sd/-

                     President                Member     

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.           Premium receipt issued by OP

A2 .          Policy

A3.            Copy of rejection letter issued by   OP

A4.           Letter sent by 3^rd OP to complainant

A5.           Copy of the letter sent to 4^th OP

A6 & A7.  Letters dt.9.4.12 and 13.4.12 sent by OP

A8.           Copy of the letter dt.21.4.12 sent to OP

A9 & 10. Letters dt.26.4.12 and 2.5.12 sent by 5^th OP

A11.       Copy of the Advance receipt issued from Sadhoo

               Kalyana    mandapam.

A12.       Policy issued by the OP

A13.       Copy of Deposit transaction enquiry shoot issued by

              NMG  Bank to complainant

 Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1.Copy of the proposal form

B2.Copy of the policy bond

B3.Copy of the request letter dt.22.2.12 sent by complainant

B4.Copies of the Complainant’s letters with reply

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

Nil

                                                       /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.