DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1178 of 2018
Date of institution: 15.11.2018 Date of decision : 21.06.2021
Karuna Babber d/o Shri A.D. Bubber, resident of House No.866, Phase-4, Sector 59, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Ms. Sunita Chhabra (Employee of SBI Phase-1, Mohali and dealing with SBI Shubh Nivesh Policy and presently posted at State Bank of India, SCO 263, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh 160047).
2. Mr. Bibhu Mohanty, Deputy Manager – Client Relationship SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.144, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh 160002.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Vishal Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri N.S. Jagdeva, counsel for OP No.2.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and
Shri Inderjit, Member
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC visited the SBI Branch in Phase-1, Mohali and met OP No.1 who advised the CC to invest money in SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Policy and allured her that if the CC pays Rs.50,000/- annually for 5 years, the CC would get in the sixth year an assured amount between Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- besides getting Income Tax Benefit under Section 80 C for these years, which the CC in fact wished to get. The CC, being Assistant Professor in a Govt. College agreed to the proposal and accordingly agreed to invest Rs.50,000/- annually for 5 years aggregating to Rs.2,50,000/-. In the sixth year, on maturity on 28.02.2017, the CC got Rs.2,64,698/- only. On getting a lesser amount, the CC made a complaint through email on dated 07.03.2017 and 11.03.2017 to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh and got the reply from one Ms. Richa Chadha, Deputy Manager, regarding resolution of the complaint of the CC within 15 days. OP No.2 through email dated 24.03.2017 informed the CC that the policy subscribed by the CC was a traditional plan and was issued with a fixed sum assured of Rs.2,20,000/- which was payable on maturity, alongwith vested Simple Reversionary Bonus. It was further stated in the reply that the policy participated in the profits arising out of the Company’s ‘With Profits’ Life Insurance business and it got a share of the profits in the form of bonuses during the endowment term of 5 years. It was further mentioned in the reply that as regards the higher returns, their organization has not authorized any intermediatory to offer any such fixed bonus amount of any policy. It is further alleged by the CC that the Company must have briefed its agents to tell the customers of getting high returns at the time of subscribing the policy, which means that it was just a technique for promoting the sale of Life Insurance policies thereby befooling the gullible and innocent persons with high returns on maturity. The CC in her complaint dated 11.03.2017 had requested SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to investigate the matter and punish the delinquent person i.e. OP No.1 so that she and others like her may not defraud the public in future, but neither any action was taken nor any departmental inquiry was conducted which reveals connivance of OP No.2 with OP No.1. The CC then approached Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh but failed to get justice. The CC has further averred that the premium was taken first and policy was sent after a month or so. After receipt of the policy when the CC found the maturity amount as Rs.2,20,000/- she rang up OP No.1 and informed her of difference in the assured amount. However, OP No.1 again assured the CC and reiterated that after addition of bonus of 5 years, the assured amount would work out between Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/-. On maturity of the policy on 28.02.2017 when the final payment of Rs.2,64,698/- reached the CC, the CC again telephonically called OP No.1 on 2-3 times but OP No.1 did not pick up the phone. On 21.12.2016 the CC sent a whatsapp message but again OP No.1 after reading the message ignored the same.
Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought directions to OPs to pay the difference amount of Rs.1,10,302/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 28.02.2017 todate. The CC has also sought Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.40,000/- as litigation cost. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. Instead of filing reply by Sunita Chhabra, the State Bank of India itself came forward and filed reply on behalf of Sunita Chhabra and raised number of objections that the CC had no right to make OP No.1 as party in person since she is an employee of the State Bank of India. Moreover, the proposal form dated 20.02.2012 was duly signed by the CC and she had no right to allege any kind of deficiency in service against the State Bank of India. Even under Clause-13 of the insurance policy, there is Free Look Period and the CC had the option to return the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy. By not returning the policy within 15 days amounts to acceptance of the policy. The allegations against OP No.1, an employee of the State Bank of India are not cogent and without any convincing evidence. There is no documentary evidence of misguiding the CC by OP No.1 namely Sunita Chhabra. It is further averred in the reply that the complaint is barred by limitation etc. It is also alleged that the CC is an educated lady and it cannot be presumed that she could be taken by any false promise from OP No.1. The maturity amount has been paid by OP No.2 to the CC. Thus denying any deficiency in service on part of the State Bank of India, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Instead of filing reply on behalf of OP No.2, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. has filed reply whereby it has alleged that Bibhu Mohanty is their employee and he cannot be made party in person. The same version is adopted by OP No.2 as has been filed by OP No.1. It is specifically alleged that SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. has not given any such assurance about the returns of benefits payable to the CC. Earlier the CC had chosen the platform of Ombudsman, Chandigarh where her complaint was dismissed. She could have fully availed the Free Look Period of the policy of 15 days but the fact that she is an educated lady, did not avail the option of returning the policy. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP No.2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The CC in support of her complaint submitted her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to C-6. On the other hand OP No.1 submitted her reply by way of affidavit alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and OP No.2 had submitted documents Annexure A to Annexure E.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 and have gone through the record of this case.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the allegations of the CC are specifically against Ms. Sunita Chhabra, an employee of the State Bank of India. The specific allegation of the CC is that Ms. Sunita Chhabra, an employee of the State Bank of India misguided and allured her and gave her wrong information. The CC has levelled serious allegation against OP No.1 that at the time of subscribing the policy, she was fully convinced by OP No.1 an employee of the State Bank of India which is sister concern of OP No.2, that on maturity CC will get an amount between Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs. Even after receiving the policy and perusing the same during the Free Look Period, when CC contacted OP No.1 she was given the same assurance that her policy will definitely fetch her an amount between Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs.
7. Even after receiving an amount of Rs.2,64,698/-, the CC made a written complaint (email dated 11.03.2017) to OP No.2 that the amount received by her was not the same which was assured to her by Ms. Sunita Chhabra, an employee of the State Bank of India. Even the CC had requested the OP No.2 to investigate the matter and punish the delinquent person so that she and other persons like her may not get defrauded or misguided by such type of so called agents.
8. During perusal of entire replies and the evidence filed by the CC and the OPs, we feel that simple grievance of the CC is against OP No.1, an employee of State Bank of India who gave false and misleading facts to the CC and rather the CC had only sought an inquiry or some kind of action against such an erring employee. Even with this kind of plea, the CC had approached the Ombudsman. Probably as per her allegations, the CC was not heard. Now the point in controversy before us is whether by giving false and misleading information during subscription of the policy to the CC, is there any deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs or not? It is writ large on the file that OP No.1 definitely acted as an agent of OP No.2 and as such OP No.2 is equally liable since principle of vicarious liability will apply here. Accordingly State Bank of India, Mohali and SBI Life Insurance Chandigarh are equally liable for the act and conduct of their respective employees. We have also perused the affidavit of Ms. Sunita Chhabra. Surprisingly, Ms. Sunita Chhabra has not specifically denied the conversation between the CC and her. Moreover, there is nothing in the affidavit/reply that what could be the motive of the CC to falsely implicate Ms. Sunita Chhabra in the present complaint. From the perusal of all the documents and evidence on the file, there is nothing against the CC that why she has implicated Ms. Sunita Chhabra and why she is leveling allegations against Ms. Sunita Chhabra who misled and gave her wrong picture during subscription of the policy. The CC in the present case, as we have mentioned earlier, has only sought action against delinquent officials of the OPs who misled and gave wrong picture at the time of subscribing the policy. Nothing else was sought by the CC. Now the question is whether any inquiry was conducted by the OPs or any steps or action was taken against the delinquent officials i.e. the OPs? We do not find any such evidence on the record. We feel that it was incumbent upon the State Bank of India and SBI Life Insurance Chandigarh to atleast conduct an inquiry in this matter and warn the delinquent official not to procure the policies in such a manner, which is definitely against legal and moral norms. By not conducting any inquiry on the allegations of the CC, definitely there is deficiency in service on the part of the State Bank of India and SBI Life Insurance Chandigarh for which we feel that they are liable to be penalised.
9. As far as the objection raised by the State Bank of India and SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. that they have not been made party by the CC, we feel that both the State Bank of India and SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. by appearing in the Commission and contesting the complaint of the CC, has served the purpose of the CC. Another question raised by OP No.2 that the CC had received the amount of Rs.2,64,698/- and had no cause of action. It is important to mention here that by lodging various complaints with OP No.2, it is proved on the file that the CC had raised the dispute with OP No.2 and she made her cause of action alive. There is no specific evidence filed by both the OPs that the CC was ever misrepresented by them. Rather both the OPs have escaped the specific allegation of the CC in their replies
10. We also feel, that it was incumbent on the insurance company i.e. OP No.2 to provide the clear and cogent calculations from time to time to the CC and even on yearly basis that how much bonuses or other benefits the CC was becoming entitled to. The consumer should know regularly the exact amount of money she is going to get after maturity of policy and that how the bonuses were calculated and determined. We feel that the SBI Insurance Company was under legal obligation to provide the proper calculations year wise to the CC. The ingredients of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are writ large on the file.
11. Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation enacted to help the genuine consumers and to curb the malpractice prevalent in the society. We are equipped with more powers to tackle the business groups who mislead and give false assurances to the genuine customers in order to procure business. It is generally seen that the agents appointed by the Ops are given a small incentive in the shape of money to procure more and more business but on the other hand the agents themselves get involved in malpractices while trying to procure more and more business on the basis of misleading facts.
11. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed in favour of the CC. We order State Bank of India, Mohali and SBI Life Insurance Chandigarh jointly and severally to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the CC and they are at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the delinquent employees, if they so desire. There is no order as to costs. Compliance of the aforesaid order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order failing which the CC will be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
June 21, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Inderjit)
Member
