DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

SH. Paramjot Lamba son of Sh. H. S. Lamba resident of House No.3084/1, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160022.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.149-150, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:          Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, on the grounds that the complainant on being approached by one Anurag Ghakhar, an agent of opposite party allured him to purchase an insurance policy known as Birla Sunlife Insurance Flexi Life Line Plan (Flexi Cash Flow Term 20 Enhancer) policy No.000784686 with 3.11.2006 as its date of commencement. While inviting the complainant to invest in the said policy, the agent had made him belief that he would be able to withdraw the invested money after one year and a very nominal charges would be deducted at the time of withdrawal. The proposal form was got filled up and signatures of the complainant were also appended on the same. The complainant continuously paid Rs.10,972/- as quarterly premium till November 2008. Thereafter, the complainant after having invested Rs.87,781/- could not further pay the premium regularly due to  his personal financial difficulty. The complainant on 3.11.2010 informed the opposite party about his desire to pay the dues of the insurance premiums outstanding against him to which the opposite party demanded Rs.98,751/- as the outstanding amount against him. The opposite party also disclosed that an amount of Rs.37,179/- would be deducted in case the policy is to be continued after revival and the same was mentioned in letter dated 3.11.2010.

2.           The complainant states that the officials of the opposite party informed him that in case the policy gets terminated without revival, he would be entitled to receive Rs.50,601/- less Rs.37,180/- against Rs.87,781/-, the money already deposited with the opposite party. The complainant claims that the same information was also provided to him while he contacted the opposite party on its toll free number on 28.11.2010. The complainant claims that due to conflicting information coming from the opposite party surrendered the policy but claims that he was not paid anything out of his entire deposited amount of Rs.87,781/-. Whereas, he claims that he was entitled to receive Rs.50,601/- after the deduction of Rs.37,180/- as disclosed by the opposite party earlier. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant has sought relief of Rs.87,781/- paid towards insurance premiums along with interest @24% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till its paid. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.           On notice, opposite party filed written statement wherein it has taken preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the present complaint as well as no legal ground for the complainant to file the said complaint against the opposite party.

4.           On merits, the opposite party has clearly taken a stand that the complainant had filled up the proposal form in his own handwriting after having understood all the terms and conditions of the policy in question. The policy bearing No.000784686 dated 3.11.2006 was issued on the basis of the proposal form No.5246466. The date of application is mentioned as 27.10.2006 and was valid up to 3.11.2026. The opposite party claims that the policy document was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by him. The complainant was also offered 15 days free look period, the complainant did not exercise his option if he was not satisfied with any condition of the policy document. It is further stated that the complainant regularly paid as many as eight installments during the period beginning 3.11.2006 up to 22.9.2008.

5.           The opposite party has also categorically mentioned that it was due to the personal financial difficulties of the complainant that he discontinued to pay the installments and it was only in the year 2010 when on enquiry of revival, he was asked to pay all the remaining outstanding premiums along with the revival fees as applicable for the said policy. But the complainant did not deposit any money thereafter. The allegation of the complainant that he was advised that in case of termination of his policy, he would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.50,601/- less Rs.37,180/- as against the standard deductions, is vehemently denied because according to the opposite party, there are different clauses of the policy, which explain the status of the policy under different circumstances. The opposite party has also pointed out to the document annexed by the complainant at Page 26 of the present complaint wherein it is clearly mentioned that in the first three years of the policy, no surrender/maturity value is mentioned nor any amount is shown against withdrawal, thus, categorically defending its case.

6.           The opposite party in its defense has also disclosed that the complainant had subscribed for two other policies No.451294 dated 21.7.2005 and another policy bearing No.620729 dated 13.3.2006 from the opposite party. The premiums payable towards these policies was Rs.31,113/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. While citing this information, the opposite party claims that the complainant is neither an ignorant nor a simpleton who was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy in question that he is contesting now as the documents in his possession pertaining to the other policies contain ample information with regard to his rights of surrender of his policy.

7.           The opposite party has also annexed the copy of Proposal Form No.5246466, which also contains a declaration by the complainant and the same is dated 27.10.2006, which is reproduced as under: -

“I have received this Sales Illustration and the relevant product brochure(s) and understand that the amounts indicated under columns “Fund Value” and “Benefits” in this Illustration will vary depending on the actual performance of the Investment Fund supporting the Policy and could be higher or lower than illustrated. I understand that the “Fund Value” and “Benefits” should be treated as hypothetical only and neither as an estimate nor a guarantee of the future Fund performance. I further understand that the “Fund Value” and “Benefits” as illustrated do not consider the impact of any current or future tax laws.”

8.           While citing the above declaration, the opposite party claims that the allegations of the complainant are totally baseless and hence, should not be believed at all. On the above mentioned grounds, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

9.           Parties led their respective evidences.

10.          Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the opposite party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

(i)           As per the opening lines of the present complaint, the complainant has himself disclosed that due to the recession in the market, he could not pay the premiums towards the said insurance policies after November 2008 and it was only in the month of May 2010, he approached the opposite party to enquire about the dues against him. The complainant also admits that the opposite party had demanded Rs.98,751/- for the revival of the said policy, which included the revival charges as applicable to this particular policy. Though the complainant had initially wanted to revive the said policy but no reason is attributed as to why he made up his mind to withdraw the amount of Rs.87,781/- paid against the previous first eight installments and that too after a lapse of more than 1 ½ year.

(ii)          The complainant though claims that he was entitled for the refund of Rs.50,601/- after the deduction of Rs.37,180/- from the entire amount of Rs.87,781/- deposited by him but the document submitted along with the complaint annexed at Page 26 clearly shows that there was no surrender or maturity value nor any amount was worth withdrawing till he had successfully continued the said policy for complete three years. The complainant has failed to convince on this aspect of the said policy.

(iii)         The allegation of the complainant in the opening Para No.2 of the complaint that he was allured by the agent of the opposite party in the month November 2006 also stands demolished as the opposite party has clearly brought on record the information of two other policies that the complainant has subscribed for in the year July 2005 and March 2006 under the plans (1) Life Companion FAV-Term 16 and (2) Classic Premier FAV respectively. Hence, it is proved that the complainant is very much aware of all the aspects of the policy that he has subscribed for and cannot lay any blame at the doorstep of the opposite party.

(iv)          The present complaint has been categorically defeated by the opposite party word by word and the allegations leveled by the complainant have failed.

11.          Hence, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

12.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th December, 2011.                                                        Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)