Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/722

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 722 of 17.10.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 23.04.2015

                    

Jaswant Singh s/o Sh.Prem Singh, Resident of H.No.295, L-Block, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. SBI Life Insurance co. Ltd. IInd Floor, B-XIX, 223/2, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, through its Head Pardeep Gautam.

2. Regional Director (North-1) Grievance Redressal Officer SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-109-110, Sec-17B, 3^rd Floor, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                    Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Nipun Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Jaswant Singh s/o Sh.Prem Singh, Resident of H.No.295, L-Block, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against SBI Life Insurance co. Ltd. IInd Floor, B-XIX, 223/2, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, through its Head Pardeep Gautam and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay Rs.1708/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled to.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased Life Insurance Policy i.e. Flexi Smart Insurance Policy alongwith mediclaim. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OPs. Thereafter the complainant time and again approached their concerned officials to give the details of the said policy, but their concerned officials always postponed the matter one or the other false pretext. Thereafter the complainant came to know that their concerned officials have invested the said amount in the policy of SBI Life Smart Performer no.44056466405. But their officials provide different policy to the complainant, which is never agreed to the complainant. After receiving the wrong policy, the complainant approached their officials many times and also requested the OPs many times for issuance of correct policy, but their officials postponed the matter on one or the other false pretext. Thereafter the complainant moved an complaint to the OP1 on the complaint moved by the complainant, the Ops got filled a form from the complainant by giving assurance that the Ops will refund the entire amount of the complainant. The complainant several times approached the Ops with a request to refund the entire amount and on the persistent request of the complainant, the Ops transfer an amount of Rs.48,292/- only in the account of the complainant, but the Ops illegally deducted an amount of Rs.1708/- and the OPs have not refunded the amount alongwith interest to the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 25.2.14, through his counsel upon the OPs. Said notice was duly received by the OPs, but they neither replied nor complied with the same. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; the complainant is not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further submitted that the policy was issued as per the proposal form signed by the complainant. Further on receipt of the request for cancellation of policy under free look option, the policy was cancelled and the amount paid under free look calculation is calculated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further submitted that in the instant case also, as on the date of receipt of the request for cancellation i.e. on 3.7.13, the fund invested under the policy was disinvested and from that amount only Rs.1020/- (stamp duty (Rs.70/-) and medical charges (Rs.950/-) was deducted and hence a total of Rs.48,292/- was paid. The payment was made as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further in brief facts of the case, submitted that complainant has signed a benefit Illustration also in which also it was clearly written that the investment returns may vary depending upon market conditions and “In his Policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder”. Believing the averments in the proposal form to be true and correct, a policy bearing no.44056466405 was issued in good faith with date of commencement as 17.6.13 for a Basic Sum Assured of Rs.3.00 lacs with premium payment term of 5 years. It is an established law that the person who is executing the documents is responsible for the contents of the document. One cannot plead ignorance of the contents of the document which he/she has executed. The complainant is bound by the contents of the proposal form he has signed and hence this complaint is nothing but as distortion of the facts and the law and hence not maintainable. Further submitted that the request for free look cancellation was received on 2.7.13 @ 3.50 am. The amount payable under the free look cancellation was paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per policy, Clause no.13.1, Free Look Period, “If you have purchased the policy through distance marketing channel, you have 30 days from the date of receipt of this policy document to review its terms and conditions. If you are not satisfied, you can return the policy stating the reasons for objection. 13.1.1, “If you have purchased the policy through a channel other than distance marketing, you have 15 days from the date of receipt of this policy document to review its terms and conditions. If you are not satisfied, you can return the policy stating the reasons for objection 13.1.1 we shall refund you the amount arrived as per the following formula:

Fund Value Plus the following which are already deducted

(Premium Allocation charges

Plus Policy Adminsitration charges,

Plus Mortality charges,

Plus Accidental Death Benefit Charges, if any

Plus Corresponding Service Tax and Cess)

Minus the following

MortalityCharges alongwith the Correspoinding Service Tax and Cess, proportionate to the period you were covered.

Plus Cost of Stamp Duty,

Plus Medical Expenses, if any)

                   Further submitted that the payment was made as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The detailed calculation for the amount paid under free look cancellation is as follow:-

Policy Investment Value or Fund Value as on date of 03.07.2013	Rs.44228.93
Add: Entry Fee	Rs.4775.30
Admin Fee	Rs.67.42
Proportionate Risk Premium	Rs.223.53
Guaranteed Charges	Rs.16.93
Less: Stamp Duty	Rs.70.00
Medical Charges	Rs.950.00
Net Amount Payable	Rs.48292.11

                    An amount of Rs.48,292/- was directly transferred to the complainant’s Bank account no.10088249767 on 9.7.13. The difference in the amount of Rs.1708/- as alleged in the complaint is due to the fluctuations in the capital market as well as the deducting of medical examination and stamp duty charges. In parawise comments denying the contents of all other paras.

4.                Ld. Counsel for complainant ha adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Jaswant Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Smt.Neelam Singh w/o Sh.Surinder Pal Singh, aged about 50 years having office at 1^st Floor, Kapas Bawan, Central Processing Center (CPC), CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

5.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued orally that complainant purchased Life Insurance Policy i.e. Flexi Smart Insurance Policy alongwith mediclaim for wife and husband. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OPs. Thereafter the complainant time and again approached their concerned officials to give the details of the said policy and came to know that their concerned officials have invested the said amount in the policy of SBI Life Smart Performer no.44056466405. After receiving the wrong policy, the complainant approached their officials many times and also requested the OPs many times for issuance of correct policy, but officials of the Ops failed to do so. Thereafter the complainant also moved an complaint to the OP1 for the refund of the amount. Thereafter on the persistent request of the complainant, the Ops transfer an amount of Rs.48,292/- only in the account of the complainant, but the Ops illegally deducted an amount of Rs.1708/- and the OPs have not refunded the amount alongwith interest to the complainant, despite service of the legal notice.

6.                On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs has filed written arguments, whereby submitted that the money of the complainant was invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under Consumer Protection Act as defined in Smt.Abnti Kumari Sahoo Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. by the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal no.162 of 2010 and in Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. vide Judgement dated 23.4.13 by Hon’ble National Commission. Further submitted that the policy was issued as per proposal form signed by the complainant and further on the receipt of the request of cancellation of the policy under free look option, the policy was cancelled and the amount paid under free look option, the policy was cancelled and the amount paid under free look option is calculated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was issued as per the details furnished in the proposal and it is well established law that a person signing a document is responsible for the contents of the same and he cannot take plea that policy was missold to him. The said policy is unit linked policy, wherein the premium paid by the policy holders will be invested in the capital market and any appreciation or depreciation in the fund value will have to be borne by the policy holder. After receiving premium, the amount was invested in financial market on the date of commencement of policy and when policy holder requested for cancellation of policy under free look option, the fund was disinvested from the portfolio as per Net Asset Value (NAV) applicable. In the present case, as on the date of receipt of request of cancellation, i.e. on 3.7.13 the fund invested under the policy was disinvested and from that amount only Rs.1020/- (Stamp duty of Rs.70/-) and medical charges Rs.950/- was deducted and hence as total of Rs.48,292/- was paid. The payment was made as per the terms and conditions of the policy and no deficiency in service can be alleged on the part of the Ops.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the Ops and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of OPs and the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that complainant purchased Life Insurance Policy i.e. Flexi Smart Insurance Policy alongwith mediclaim for wife and husband and complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OPs. But after some time complainant came to know that their concerned officials have invested the said amount in the policy of SBI Life Smart Performer no.44056466405, which was surrendered by the complainant within a period of 15 days, but the Ops transfer an amount of Rs.48,292/- only in the account of the complainant and deducted an amount of Rs.1708/-. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs averred that when the policy holder requested for cancellation  of the policy under free look option, the fund was disinvested from the portfolio as per the net asset value (NAV) applicable. In the instant case as on the date of receipt of the request for cancellation i.e. on 3.7.13, the fund invested under the policy was disinvested and from that amount only Rs.1020/- (stamp duty (Rs.70/-) and medical charges (Rs.950/-) was deducted and hence a total of Rs.48,292/- was paid. The payment was made as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and Ops are directed to re-calculate the amount paid by them to the complainant, if any difference is found, after calculation, the same be paid to the complainant. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:23.04.2015 

Hardeep Singh