- Smt. Kalyani Bhattacharya,
6 Hume Road, Kalighat,
P.S. & P.O. Kalighat, Dist. Kolkata. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Central Processing Centre,
Plot No.3/A, Sector-10, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400614.
- SBI life Insurance Co. Ltd.
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 26, 1st Floor,
Shakespeare Sarani, Dimple Court,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 16 Dated 13-01-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant deposited Rs.1 lakh to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for five years in “SBI Life Unit Plus Ii – Single” an unit linked product – non practicing policy. The said policy unit was allocated on 16.4.08 in favour of the complainant. In the said policy it appears from schedule 1 that the basic benefit of the policy is that complainant would get Rs.6,25,000/- after completion of five years upon one time deposition of Rs.1 lakh. Copy of which has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. Complainant further stated that after completion of five years o.ps. offered her Rs.900/- only in respect of the aforesaid policy. Being aggrieved complainant has filed this complaint petition before this Forum for redressal with the prayer as contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. During the submission ld. lawyer of o.ps. showed that it is admitted that after completion of five years it is written in the policy details schedule 1 that complainant would get Rs.6,25,000/-, but at the same time o.ps. also stated that it is evident on the very page of the policy details that rider premiums will be deducted by way of cancellation of unit on a monthly basis irrespective of frequency opted in accordance with the relevant annexure. Beside this, o.ps. have also stated that in page 4 of the policy item no.D i.e. maturity benefit wherein it is stated that in the event that the life assured survivors upto the date of maturity, the maturity benefit will become payable, but the maturity benefit is equal to fund value based on NAV prevailing on the date of maturity. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. also drew the attention of the Forum regarding item no.16 of the terms and conditions of the policy under schedule II that there is a freelook period the policy holder has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to renew the terms and conditions of the policy and where insured disagrees to anyone of the terms and conditions the policy holder is at liberty for option to return policy stating the reasons thereof for his objection when the policy holder will be entitled to refund the amount. O.ps. further stated that complainant had not raised any objection to that effect i.e. within the freelook period as stated above.
O.ps. further stated by citing the terms and conditions of the policy that there are conditions for deducting mortality charges from the policy and which has been communicated to the complainant as it is evident from the terms and conditions of the said policy. Beside this, o.ps. further stated that in the proposal form the policy holder has duly signed wherein in serial no.12 it has written several items under the head declaration by the proposer / life to be assured. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. has also shown before this Forum that in the said item, it has clearly stated that the proposer signed the form wherein it has written “I understand and agree to various charges like risk premium, administration expenses, fund management expenses, etc. will be recovered by the company by cancellation of units / by deduction from the premium on the rates approved by IRDA”.
Ld. lawyer of o.ps. further stated in the petition of complaint that she has entered into the policy after duly been convinced by the Manager and agent of the company which has been written in paragraph 2 of the petition of complaint. But ld. lawyer of o.ps. submitted that this statement has not been proved by complainant by process of evidence. Moreover, ld. lawyer of o.ps. also stated that in reply to the questionnaire by o.ps., complainant stated in question no.27 that “I do not agree to the proposal”. In this context ld. lawyer of o.ps. submitted that after being duly signed by the proposer i.e. complainant, this answer cannot be tenable since it appears from the paragraph 1 of the petition of complaint that complainant is an educated lady and worked as Associate Professor in All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health.
During the submissions o.ps. have cited some judgments, such as published in 1 (2014) CPJ 326 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has observed that in case of unit linked policy the terms and conditions of the policy are quite elaborate and specific to the risk under the policy is to be borne by the insured. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. also cited another judgment published in 2 (2014) CPJ 190 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has also observed that it is the responsibility of the proposer to read and understand the forms before signing the same and in such cases if the proposer has signed the proposal form without going through the details then the repudiation is justified arising out the same. Upon the submissions of the above, ld. lawyer of o.ps. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Upon considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the policy which holds the complainant is not the simple life insurance policy, but it is unit linked insurance policy in which the maturity benefit is based on NAV prevailing on the date of maturity. Beside that, there are several provisions of deduction of money from maturity value. Upon relying the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission published in 2 (2014) CPJ 326 (NC) between the Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sudhi P P and another wherein Hon’ble National Commission opined that in case of Market Plus Plan policy being a unit linked policy is subject to market variation which involves risks of various nature which has been narrated in the terms and conditions approved by IRDA.
In relying upon judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission published in 2 (2014) CPJ 190 (NC) between Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. C. Venkataramudu wherein Hon’ble National Commission observed that it is a responsibility of proposer to read and understand the proposal form before signing the same.
Beside this, complainant has not agitate within the freelook period of 15 days as stipulated in the terms and conditions for cancellation or whatsoever of the policy since all the risk factors have already communicated to the complainant through terms and conditions of the policy. It is expected that if the complainant is dissatisfied he must agitate to o.ps. during the aforesaid period.
Upon considering the above submissions and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we are of the view that o.ps. have not made any deficiency to the complainant for the reasons as stated above and complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
