Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/366/2017

Davender Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jagan Nath Bhandari

06 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/366/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/11/2018

 

Davender Goyal S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o H.No.74/9, Near Maa Bhavani Mandir, Village Khuda Ali Sher, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO 127-128, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

          Registered & Corporate Address: SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Address: Natraj, MV Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (West) Mumbai – 400069.

[2]     State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of Patiala), through its Branch Manager, Branch: Khuda Alisher, U.T. Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Jagan Nath Bhandari, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh.K.S.Arya, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Davender Goyal, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the SBI Life Insurance Company Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he was holding a S/B Account No.55146894061 in Opposite Party No.2 Bank. In the month of Dec. 2016, while he was carrying banking transactions in his aforesaid account, he was convinced by the Manager Mrs. Avneet Kaur for buying Single Term Insurance Policy of Rs.1.50 Lakhs. The Complainant agreed for the said Plan and therefore an amount of Rs.1.50 Lakhs was debited from his account on 18.11.2016. The said policy was to be issued by Opposite Party No.1. It has been alleged that for some reasons on 01.12.2016 the subject Insurance Policy was cancelled by Opposite Party No.1 and the amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh was credited to above said S/B Account of the Complainant. However, surprisingly, on same day payment of Rs.1.50 Lakh was debited from the account of the Complainant and was invested in another Insurance Plan i.e. SBI Life Smart Elite Gold Cover. Since the said Policy was regular premium policy for the term of 10 years and was issued without the approval of the Complainant, he approached the Opposite Parties to cancel the Policy. The Manager of Opposite Party No.2 (Mrs.Avneet Kaur) while assuring to do the needful, kept the policy in her custody till the end of Mar. 2017 and ultimately, refused to cancel the policy saying that free look option has expired. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the claim of the Complainant by filing its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that it (OP No.1) is not privy to what had transpired between the Bank (OP No.2) and the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party is not responsible for the acts of commission or omission on the part of the Bank or vice versa. The answering Opposite Party has issued the Policy as per the duly filled and signed proposal form dated 01.12.2016 of the Complainant received through Opposite Party No.1. The Policy was dispatched to the Complainant on 14.12.2016. The Complainant had an opportunity to review the terms & conditions of the policy and if the same were not acceptable to him, he could return the policy document with his objections and get the policy cancelled under free look option within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents, but the Complainant did not avail the said facility. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that being the Agent of Opposite Party No.1 and facility provider, the features of the policy was duly explained to the Complainant and after knowing fully well the policy details, the Complainant opted and agreed for the regular premium policy. There was not any single term insurance policy as alleged by the Complainant in his Complaint. The Complainant never visited the branch of answering Opposite Party with his any such Complaint, as such the question of keeping in custody the policy document for any rectification or doing the needful and returning the same does not arise at all. It has been asserted that the disclaimer of the policy received by the Complainant clearly mentioned that he had an option to exercise his right to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy. Since the Complainant had not opted the same, he had full agreement and acceptance of the policy in totality. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statements and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replications.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
8.         The fact in the present case is that the Complainant being Customer of Opposite Party No.2 purchased one Policy of Opposite Party No.1 after getting assurance from Opposite Party No.2 for the valuable returns out of the same. Resultantly, the Complainant agreed for buying a Single Premium Insurance Policy of Rs.1.50 Lakh in the month of Dec. 2016. Admittedly, the ITR was required for the purpose of the Policy which was filed in the name of the Complainant and the Policy was processed on 18.11.2016 and an amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh was debited from the account of the Complainant. Apparently, on perusing the bank statement, it is clear that on 01.12.2016 the amount of Rs.1.50 lakh was returned to the saving bank account of Complainant and on the same date the same amount of Rs.1.50 lakh was invested again for some other Insurance Plan. As per the case of the Complainant, he was agreed for Single Term Insurance Policy only, but it is malafide intention of the Opposite Party No.2 who because of the reason of getting commission invested the hard earned amount of the Complainant in some other policy where the premium was to be paid annually to the tune of Rs.1.50 lakh which as per the written arguments of the Complainant was out of reach for him as he is running a small shop having earning of approximately Rs.12,000/- per month, therefore, he was unable for investing such huge amount of Rs.1.50 lakh annually.
9.         In the written statement of Opposite Party No.2, it has been mentioned in Para No.6 that the Complainant filed a Police Complaint on 26.4.2017 to the SSP, Police Head Quarter, Sector 9, Chandigarh, alleging the deception on the part of the Opposite Parties, but his Complaint was disposed of by the Police Department being not maintainable. Such type of confession on the part of Opposite Party No.2 is itself sufficient to prove that the Complainant after finding himself helpless after being duped by the illegal & arbitrary action of the Opposite Parties by investing his hard earned money in an unaffordable insurance scheme forced him to go to the Police Station to get his grievance readdressed. It is also important to note that as per the documents annexed with the Complaint issued by Opposite Party No.1, on Proposal Form Page 61 in Column No.9.3 details of premium remittance has been mentioned. The mode of payment has been shown as EFT through SBI from the account of the Complainant. We feel that if earlier also the same thing was to be done, then why the pay in slip dated 18.11.2016 and Banker’s Cheque dated 18.11.2016 was taken and prepared. The defence taken by Opposite Party No.2 that the policy was processed to Insurance Company on 18.11.2016 and the payment could not be given for premium due to certain reasons and EFT was done on 01.12.2016, but this fact has been totally denied by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Insurance Company.  
10.         In view of above discussion, it is clear that Opposite Parties have committed grave illegality and error on their part, which prove that they are deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant and also indulged themselves into unfair trade practice, which in turn has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
11.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from 01.12.2016, till realization.

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(a) above from 01.12.2016 till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(b) above from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/11/2018	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”