DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.07.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a retired army personnel retired as Suvedar Major in the year 2016. The complainant wanted to lead peaceful life after going on army life for 35 years. The agent of the O.Ps approached the complainant and asked to deposit annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- for five years and receive Rs.14,00,000/- as maturity value. Having trust on the saying of the agent facilitator and the O.Ps, the complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- only towards annual premium as detailed hereunder:
i. 14.10.2016 Rs.2,00,000/-
ii.31.10.2017 Rs.2,00,000/-
iii.23.10.2018 Rs.2,00,000/-
iv.19.10.2019 Rs.2,00,000/-
v. 21.10.2020 Rs.2,00,000/-
The O.Ps communicated a letter dated 24.10.2016 on receipt of first annual premium on 14.10.2016. After completion of the period end the policy became matured, the complainant requested for payment of the assured money of Rs.14,00,000/-. The O.Ps submitted Rs.11,08,593/- instead of Rs.14,00,000/- towards assured amount as per policies on question. Before payment of the money of Rs.11,08,593/- the O.Ps asked for policy bond and accordingly the complainant submitted the same. The complainant submitted a written request on 27.10.2021 to the O.P.No.3 explaining the details so requesting for return of the Bond. Instead of complying the request the Asst. Manager operations communicated letter on 27.10.2021 stating not relevant to the claims of the complainant. The O.Ps in unfair trade practice have remitted Rs.11,08,593/- instead of Rs.14,00,000/- thus making less amount of Rs.2,91,407/-. The said money of Rs.11,08,593/- has been credited to the account of the complainant in bank account on 25.10.2021. Less payment of Rs.2,91,407/- the complainant is entitled for refund of the same along with interest @18% per annum. Due to unfair trade practice and deficiency of services on the part of the O.Ps the complainant has suffered from harassing causing mental agony. For the harassment the complainant is entitled for exemplary compensation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund of balance amount of Rs.2,91,407/-, Compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.15,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.Ps filed written version through his advocates. It is stated that the complainant had submitted a duly filled in and signed proposal form bearing No. 53NA093190 dated 14.10.2016 for SBI Life Smart Elite Plan, along with the initial proposal deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- for a sum assured of Rs.14,00,000/- and term of the policy as 5 years and the policy was issued accordingly with the policy No. 53007151207 with date of commencement 21.10.2016 for a sum assured of Rs.14,00,000/- and accident benefit of Rs.14,00,000/-. The policy was a market linked plan where in the premium amount paid by the policy holder are invested in the capital market. The policy offers a risk cover of Rs.14,00,000/- and the date of maturity of the policy was on 21.10.2021. Thus the complainant was enjoying the risk cover on his life till 21.10.2021. Risk cover is the prominent feature of the product and the returns are purely incidental. In the proposal and the policy document, it was clearly mentioned that the investment risk was borne by the complainant and the complainant agreed to various charges in the declaration. As risk cover has to be granted on the life of the policy holders, all the expenses and charges like mortality charges, premium allocation charges, administration charges etc. are recovered from these funds by cancelling the appropriate number of units from the fund value. These deductions are as per the terms and conditions of the policies for providing continuous risk cover, which are duly approved by the IRDAI. The O.Ps have paid the maturity value as per the terms and conditions of the policy which is the evidence of the insurance contract. The O.Ps have not assured to pay Rs.14,00,000/- towards maturity value and is not liable to pay Rs.2,91,407/- wither with interest or without interest. The O.Ps have not caused any harassment and mental agony to the complainant and is not liable to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the same, Rs.15,000/- towards costs of litigation, advocate fees, Xerox, type, affidavit, ancillary expenses etc or any other amount whatsoever in nature. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case with cost to the company.
5. On the date of hearing the advocate for the O.Ps are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record. The complainant had submitted a duly filled in and signed proposal form bearing No. 53NA093190 dated 14.10.2016 for SBI Life Smart Elite Plan, along with the initial proposal deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- for a sum assured of Rs.14,00,000/- and term of the policy as 5 years and the policy was issued accordingly with the policy No. 53007151207 with date of commencement 21.10.2016 for a sum assured of Rs.14,00,000/- and accident benefit of Rs.14,00,000/-. The O.Ps in unfair trade practice have remitted Rs.11,08,593/- instead of Rs.14,00,000/- thus making less amount of Rs.2,91,407/-. The said money of Rs.11,08,593/- has been credited to the account of the complainant in bank account on 25.10.2021. Less payment of Rs.2,91,407/- the complainant is entitled for refund of the same along with interest. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Mrs. Puneet Kumar versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. & ors 2003 (1) CPR 274 such as:- “ Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2. The Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable are directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,91,407/- only along with 9% interest per annum with effect from the date of his complaint i.e. on 16.11.2021 to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 9% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 16.11.2021 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 23.07.2024.
